The dissenting view on yesterday’s supreme court decision.

I’m torn on this one. On one hand, I think it is unfortunate to be punished for the stupid things we do as stupid, inexperienced teenagers. On the other hand, binding a woman and throwing her off of a high bridge while she is fully conscience and begging for her life isn’t exactly just an innocent teenage prank. Yet on the other hand I see the Holy Father’s point about redemption. Interestingly the Manson family killers (all apparently except Manson) have completely changed their lives and their attitudes in prison, something that they had the opportunity to do because their sentences were commuted to life in prison.

Regardless of how we feel about the death penalty, it’s hard to ignore the logic of Justice Scalia’s dissenting view as it related to the competence of minors and how it has been argued to the court.

We need not look far to find studies contradicting the Court’s conclusions. As petitioner points out, the American Psychological Association (APA), which claims in this case that scientific evidence shows persons under 18 lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their decisions, has previously taken precisely the opposite position before this very Court. In its brief in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U. S. 417 (1990), the APA found a “rich body of research” showing that juveniles are mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion without parental involvement. Brief for APA as Amicus Curiae, O. T. 1989, No. 88-805 etc., p. 18. The APA brief, citing psychology treatises and studies too numerous to list here, asserted: “[B]y middle adolescence (age 14-15) young people develop abilities similar to adults in reasoning about moral dilemmas, understanding social rules and laws, [and] reasoning about interpersonal relationships and interpersonal problems.” Id., at 19-20 (citations omitted). Given the nuances of scientific methodology and conflicting views, courts–which can only consider the limited evidence on the record before them–are ill equipped to determine which view of science is the right one. Legislatures “are better qualified to weigh and ‘evaluate the results of statistical studies in terms of their own local conditions and with a flexibility of approach that is not available to the courts.’ ” McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279, 319 (1987) (quoting Gregg, supra, at 186).

Even putting aside questions of methodology, the studies cited by the Court offer scant support for a categorical prohibition of the death penalty for murderers under 18. At most, these studies conclude that, on average, or in most cases, persons under 18 are unable to take moral responsibility for their actions. Not one of the cited studies opines that all individuals under 18 are unable to appreciate the nature of their crimes.

Please feel free to leave a comment under the posting, or sign my Spiritbook (guestbook). You can chat with me on the tag board to the right!