No Consequences

I suppose everyone and their grandmother is going to post something on the death penality decision of the Supreme Court from yesterday. At the bottom of this post is a series of links to various news stories, opinion pieces and blogs about the decision. I feel the need to throw a little something out there as well.

First, I believe the death penalty, when properly applied and decided, is a valuable deterrent, a key portion of punishment. I know there are studies out there that there is a disproportionate number of minorities on death row, arguements about sentencing the mentally retarded to death and other issues. But I am talking about something different--realziing that there are consequences for your actions, even if you are a legal minor.

By holding unconstitutional the imposing of hte death penalty to minors, the Court has opened a dangerous door, one that tells 16 and 17 year old gangbangers that they can kill with relative impunity. Sure a life sentence is still a possibility, but really, what kid thinks about that. Some minors today know that the crimes they commit as juveniles are subject to less stringent punishment because society has determined that "they don't know any better." Which, in impolite terms is a crock of shit. These kids know that by taking a life, they are committing a crime. They know that in committing the crime they are subject to punishment if and when they are caught. Finally, these kids know that society treats them differently.

The death penalty need not be applied to be effective. The mere fact that the penalty is available is enough to provide some detterent. Now a seventeen year old kid, three weeks from his 18th birthday can go out and murder someone, in cold blood, in a violent and heinous fashion and never fear the gas chamber, lethal injection or the electric chair. The same crime committed three weeks later would surely mean, in some states, that the prosecution could seek the death penalty.

I know that the courst need to draw a line somewhere. But there needs to be a little consistency. If a 16 year old kid negligently kills or injures someone in say a car accident, under modern tort law they can be held liable for that wrongful death. As a matter of law in most states, 14 year old minors can be held civily liable for their own torts. So a 16 year old can be held liable for wrongful death, but a cold blooded murder who happens to be 16 does not have to face the full range of the statye's punishment. How is that consistent?

News links:

The Decision--Courtesy of Findlaw and the Washington Post
The Washington Post
CNN.com
New York Times--story and analysis
SCOTUS Blog
Fox News