ShareThis Page
Rejection reveals split among high court on juvenile death penalty |

Rejection reveals split among high court on juvenile death penalty

The Associated Press
| Tuesday, October 22, 2002 12:00 a.m

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court revealed deep divisions over the death penalty Monday as justices used unusually strong language regarding the constitutionality of executing people who killed when they were juveniles and allowing exceedingly long waits on death row.

The high court declined to hear two capital murder cases: one for a man given the death penalty for a killing committed when he was 17 and the other for a man who has spent nearly three decades waiting to die.

The court split along traditional lines, with the four more liberal justices saying the court should continue a re-examination of the death penalty begun last year when it banned executions of the mentally retarded. The four said it was “shameful” to execute juvenile killers.

“The practice of executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Two months ago, Stevens alone went on record against the executions of juvenile offenders. Ginsburg and Breyer said they wanted the court to consider the issue.

No justice wrote separately yesterday to defend the practice, but Justice Clarence Thomas expressed outrage at the thought of overturning death penalty convictions for longtime death row inmates.

The prisoner in this case, Thomas wrote, “could long ago have ended his ‘anxieties and uncertainties’ by submitting to what the people of Florida have deemed him to deserve: execution.”

“The court is really mirroring America’s own debate and struggle with this set of questions,” said Lawrence Marshall, a Northwestern University law professor specializing in the death penalty.

Justices began a nine-month term this month and have agreed to hear four death penalty cases. All deal with technical questions related to the imposition of the death penalty and would not be potential vehicles for outlawing capital punishment.

The use of the death penalty has gotten increased attention in recent years as cases have emerged in which it was shown defendants received poor legal representation and genetic evidence proved the innocence of people sent to death row.

In Illinois, clemency hearings began this month for most of the inmates on that state’s death row. Executions are on hold there and in Maryland.

Only the United States and a few other countries allow execution of juvenile killers. States that allow the death penalty may impose it on killers who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crimes.

The juvenile case rejected by the court yesterday involved a Kentucky man sentenced to death for abducting, sodomizing and killing a gas station attendant when he was 17. Kevin Stanford, now 39, has been on death row since 1982. In 1989, the high court used Stanford’s case to uphold juvenile executions.

Stanford’s lawyers argued such executions violate not only the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment but an international treaty signed by the United States. Like the retardation question, the issue of juvenile killers turns on the defendants’ capacity to understand their situation, and their level of culpability.

In his dissent, Stevens wrote that since the 1989 case, “a national consensus has developed that juvenile offenders should not be executed.”

Currently, 16 of the 38 states that allow the death penalty prohibit it for those under 18. The federal government also prohibits capital punishment for juveniles prosecuted in federal court. Two states, Montana and Indiana, have enacted prohibition laws since the court last considered the Stanford case in 1989. Kansas and New York also recently barred the practice.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.