Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
the US Supreme Court this morning has ruled unconstitutional the death penalty for anyone who committed their crimes before age 18. this affects 70 people on death row now, including lee malveaux, the sniper. there were four dissenting opinions.
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
Young Killer Who Threw Woman In River Hails Death Penalty Ruling
Victim Taken From Home, Tied Up, Thrown Into River
POSTED: 12:12 pm EST March 2, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Eight months has made a lifetime of difference for Christopher Simmons.
Because Simmons was that many months shy of his 18th birthday when he tossed a woman to her death off a railroad trestle, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that he cannot be executed for the murder.
The ruling in Simmons' case also spared the life of 72 death row inmates across the nation who were younger than 18 when they committed murder and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.
Victim Taken From Home, Tied Up, Thrown Into River
POSTED: 12:12 pm EST March 2, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Eight months has made a lifetime of difference for Christopher Simmons.
Because Simmons was that many months shy of his 18th birthday when he tossed a woman to her death off a railroad trestle, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that he cannot be executed for the murder.
The ruling in Simmons' case also spared the life of 72 death row inmates across the nation who were younger than 18 when they committed murder and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
None the less, I still agree with the decision.
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons.html
EXECUTING JUVENILE OFFENDERS RUNS COUNTER TO BASIC AMERICAN STANDARDS OF DECENCY AND FAIRNESS
The execution of a juvenile offender is contrary to fundamental principles of American justice which punishes according to the degree of culpability and reserves the death penalty for the "worst of the worst" offenders. By their very nature, teenagers are less mature, and therefore less culpable, than adults who commit similar acts but have no such explanation for their conduct. Adolescence is a transitional period of life when cognitive abilities, emotions, judgment, impulse control, and identity are still developing.
Indeed, immaturity is the reason we do not allow those under eighteen to assume the major responsibilities of adulthood such as military combat service, voting, entering into contracts, drinking alcohol or making medical decisions. A number of organizations including the American Bar Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the Children's Defense Fund, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Mental Health Association have taken a stand against the juvenile death penalty.
In April 2002, Indiana became the latest state to abolish the juvenile death penalty, raising the total number of states that bar the execution of juvenile offenders to 28. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia now bar the execution of juvenile offenders by law and twelve states do not have capital punishment. If one adds the number of states which are now considering, or have recently considered, bills to raise the eligibility age for the death penalty to age eighteen, including Missouri, Texas (a bill passed the House), Florida (a bill passed unanimously the Senate), Nevada, Arizona, Kentucky, and Mississippi, it is clear that a consensus is emerging against the execution of juvenile offenders.
In the Midwest, a region that is not as supportive of capital punishment as other regions of the country, evolving standards of decency decry the use of the death penalty against juvenile offenders. A recent survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center found that only 31.5 % of Midwesterners support using the death penalty against juvenile offenders. Now that Indiana has repealed its juvenile death penalty, Missouri is the lone Midwestern state with the juvenile death penalty on its statute books.
EXECUTING JUVENILE OFFENDERS IS CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW
In continuing to execute juvenile offenders, the United States acts in defiance of substantial international consensus and law. Indeed, such executions have all but ended around the world, except in the United States. In the last decade, the United States has executed more juvenile offenders than all the world's nations combined. Since 1990, only seven countries are reported to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years of age at the time of the crime: The Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the United States. The nations of Pakistan, and Yemen have since abolished the juvenile death penalty, while Saudi Arabia and Nigeria deny that they have executed juvenile offenders.
In the last three years the number of nations that execute juvenile offenders has dwindled to only three: Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the United States. Moreover, just this past year, Iran stated that it no longer executes juvenile offenders while the leader of the Democratic Republic of Congo commuted the death sentences of four juvenile offenders.
The death penalty for juvenile offenders is expressly prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the American Convention of Human Rights. While the United States has not yet ratified the CRC and specifically reserved its right to execute juveniles when ratifying the ICCPR, the execution of Christopher Simmons would further alienate the United States from the international community. Moreover, it would further damage our legitimacy as a world leader in the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly the rights of children.
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons.html
EXECUTING JUVENILE OFFENDERS RUNS COUNTER TO BASIC AMERICAN STANDARDS OF DECENCY AND FAIRNESS
The execution of a juvenile offender is contrary to fundamental principles of American justice which punishes according to the degree of culpability and reserves the death penalty for the "worst of the worst" offenders. By their very nature, teenagers are less mature, and therefore less culpable, than adults who commit similar acts but have no such explanation for their conduct. Adolescence is a transitional period of life when cognitive abilities, emotions, judgment, impulse control, and identity are still developing.
Indeed, immaturity is the reason we do not allow those under eighteen to assume the major responsibilities of adulthood such as military combat service, voting, entering into contracts, drinking alcohol or making medical decisions. A number of organizations including the American Bar Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the Children's Defense Fund, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Mental Health Association have taken a stand against the juvenile death penalty.
In April 2002, Indiana became the latest state to abolish the juvenile death penalty, raising the total number of states that bar the execution of juvenile offenders to 28. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia now bar the execution of juvenile offenders by law and twelve states do not have capital punishment. If one adds the number of states which are now considering, or have recently considered, bills to raise the eligibility age for the death penalty to age eighteen, including Missouri, Texas (a bill passed the House), Florida (a bill passed unanimously the Senate), Nevada, Arizona, Kentucky, and Mississippi, it is clear that a consensus is emerging against the execution of juvenile offenders.
In the Midwest, a region that is not as supportive of capital punishment as other regions of the country, evolving standards of decency decry the use of the death penalty against juvenile offenders. A recent survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center found that only 31.5 % of Midwesterners support using the death penalty against juvenile offenders. Now that Indiana has repealed its juvenile death penalty, Missouri is the lone Midwestern state with the juvenile death penalty on its statute books.
EXECUTING JUVENILE OFFENDERS IS CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW
In continuing to execute juvenile offenders, the United States acts in defiance of substantial international consensus and law. Indeed, such executions have all but ended around the world, except in the United States. In the last decade, the United States has executed more juvenile offenders than all the world's nations combined. Since 1990, only seven countries are reported to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years of age at the time of the crime: The Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the United States. The nations of Pakistan, and Yemen have since abolished the juvenile death penalty, while Saudi Arabia and Nigeria deny that they have executed juvenile offenders.
In the last three years the number of nations that execute juvenile offenders has dwindled to only three: Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the United States. Moreover, just this past year, Iran stated that it no longer executes juvenile offenders while the leader of the Democratic Republic of Congo commuted the death sentences of four juvenile offenders.
The death penalty for juvenile offenders is expressly prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the American Convention of Human Rights. While the United States has not yet ratified the CRC and specifically reserved its right to execute juveniles when ratifying the ICCPR, the execution of Christopher Simmons would further alienate the United States from the international community. Moreover, it would further damage our legitimacy as a world leader in the protection and promotion of human rights, particularly the rights of children.
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
i knew you would disagree my friend 
, but there may well be some interesting discussion here, death penalty questions with the additional factor of age.
, but there may well be some interesting discussion here, death penalty questions with the additional factor of age.Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
lady cop wrote: i knew you would disagree my friend , but there may well be some interesting discussion here, death penalty questions with the additional factor of age.
I agree. I just don't like getting too involved with this type of discussion, I can get overly emotional in them. Simmons did a very bad thing, horrible, unspeakable, but I am not sure his mind was in the same mentality of a Bundy-type. I get conflicted over a sense of vengence and a sense of what I see as fair and just. I can better understand a seasoned and mature serial killer being executed than I can someone who commits crimes as a kid.
When I was a teenager, I had wierd ideas and distorted reality, nothing homicidal or harmful to others, but things that now embarrass me and make me realize that even though I appeared to be all there, I was a little messed up at times.
, but there may well be some interesting discussion here, death penalty questions with the additional factor of age.I agree. I just don't like getting too involved with this type of discussion, I can get overly emotional in them. Simmons did a very bad thing, horrible, unspeakable, but I am not sure his mind was in the same mentality of a Bundy-type. I get conflicted over a sense of vengence and a sense of what I see as fair and just. I can better understand a seasoned and mature serial killer being executed than I can someone who commits crimes as a kid.
When I was a teenager, I had wierd ideas and distorted reality, nothing homicidal or harmful to others, but things that now embarrass me and make me realize that even though I appeared to be all there, I was a little messed up at times.
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
you're right Beth, this is one conversation that tends to become passsionate and heated .
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
Does this mean that a murder committed by a teenager causes less harm to the victims loved ones, than one committed by an adult ? Shall we slide further down this slope and decide that anyone committing murder must be out of their mind, and therefor exempt from the death penalty?
The mind's of teenagers are by definition immature, they are however, from about 3 yrs. old , capable of understanding right from wrong.
The mind's of teenagers are by definition immature, they are however, from about 3 yrs. old , capable of understanding right from wrong.
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill 
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
Beth wrote: I I can better understand a seasoned and mature serial killer being executed than I can someone who commits crimes as a kid.
If you use Malveaux as an example for this, wouldn't he be very much like a serial killer? I have always had a problem with the line being drawn at a certain birthday. If a kids kills 5 people at 11:30pm the night before his 18th birthday, he is not subject to the death penalty, but if he commits exactly the same crime 31 minutes later he is? If only it were possible to take each single case into consideration individually. Each person is different, each crime is different, but when the laws governing the punishment are written in such a way as to allow ANYONE under 18 to get away with murder, something is wrong. It's a very touchy subject, and I'm sure it's about to cause some very heated discussion here.
If you use Malveaux as an example for this, wouldn't he be very much like a serial killer? I have always had a problem with the line being drawn at a certain birthday. If a kids kills 5 people at 11:30pm the night before his 18th birthday, he is not subject to the death penalty, but if he commits exactly the same crime 31 minutes later he is? If only it were possible to take each single case into consideration individually. Each person is different, each crime is different, but when the laws governing the punishment are written in such a way as to allow ANYONE under 18 to get away with murder, something is wrong. It's a very touchy subject, and I'm sure it's about to cause some very heated discussion here.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
I don't even think Malveaux was a seasoned killer. He was under the influence of his older, father figure lover. Also, imprisoning a murder, under the age of 18 is not allowing them to get away with murder.
I wonder, is the death penalty truly legal justice, or is it legal vengeance for the family?
I wonder, is the death penalty truly legal justice, or is it legal vengeance for the family?
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
Maybe not a seasoned killer, but a killer none the less. I maintain that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment in a large number of cases. And as far as legal vengeance for the family, yes, they should have it. Their family member is gone, where IS the justice for them? Seeing the killer of their loved one sitting in jail being visited by their own family? Neither of us will change the other's view on this topic; that's not why I take part. I know you said you get emotionally involved, and I do too. It's an important discussion and there will be no attacks from my end. We just see things differently. You'd get along wonderfully with my grandfather! :yh_peace
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
I don't want to attack, either. I battle with the concept of death penalty. There is someone that I used to fantacize seeing frying for taking someone from me and me never knowing what truly happened, just the keen sense that this person did it. I no longer feel that, someone's death will not bring the person back. I suppose I learned to forgive.
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
Beth wrote: I don't even think Malveaux was a seasoned killer. He was under the influence of his older, father figure lover. Also, imprisoning a murder, under the age of 18 is not allowing them to get away with murder.
I wonder, is the death penalty truly legal justice, or is it legal vengeance for the family?
I'm not opposed to legal vengeance for the family, they, with no warning, or choice, were instantly and brutally deprived of their loved one, and their sense of well being and security destroyed.
A less emotional, but more pragmatic issue is why should I have to pay to warehouse this individual who has chosen to violate that most sacrosanct rule of civilization thou shall not kill.
Could not that money be better spent?
I wonder, is the death penalty truly legal justice, or is it legal vengeance for the family?
I'm not opposed to legal vengeance for the family, they, with no warning, or choice, were instantly and brutally deprived of their loved one, and their sense of well being and security destroyed.
A less emotional, but more pragmatic issue is why should I have to pay to warehouse this individual who has chosen to violate that most sacrosanct rule of civilization thou shall not kill.
Could not that money be better spent?
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
Der Wulf wrote: I'm not opposed to legal vengeance for the family, they, with no warning, or choice, were instantly and brutally deprived of their loved one, and their sense of well being and security destroyed.
A less emotional, but more pragmatic issue is why should I have to pay to warehouse this individual who has chosen to violate that most sacrosanct rule of civilization thou shall not kill.
Could not that money be better spent? :(With all of the appeals processes, it costs more to execute a murderer than to house a murderer. Also, one must factor in the possibility of the state executing an innocent man.
A less emotional, but more pragmatic issue is why should I have to pay to warehouse this individual who has chosen to violate that most sacrosanct rule of civilization thou shall not kill.
Could not that money be better spent? :(With all of the appeals processes, it costs more to execute a murderer than to house a murderer. Also, one must factor in the possibility of the state executing an innocent man.
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
Beth wrote: With all of the appeals processes, it costs more to execute a murderer than to house a murderer.True although IMO this is simply a legal means to circumvent due process. It has about as much relavence to jurisprudence as a filibuster to responsible legislation.
Beth wrote:
Also, one must factor in the possibility of the state executing an innocent man.Our legal system holds that the jury is empowered to determine truth, without this finality, anarchy would eventually become the norm. We could debate the potential mistakes, and the flaws in our legal system ad infinitum, but the real question is wether death for a murderer is appropriate. I simply can find no reasonable cause to preserve the life of one, who has chosen to take the life of an innocent, for no reason other than self gratification
Beth wrote:
Also, one must factor in the possibility of the state executing an innocent man.Our legal system holds that the jury is empowered to determine truth, without this finality, anarchy would eventually become the norm. We could debate the potential mistakes, and the flaws in our legal system ad infinitum, but the real question is wether death for a murderer is appropriate. I simply can find no reasonable cause to preserve the life of one, who has chosen to take the life of an innocent, for no reason other than self gratification
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
BabyRider wrote: If you use Malveaux as an example for this, wouldn't he be very much like a serial killer? I have always had a problem with the line being drawn at a certain birthday. If a kids kills 5 people at 11:30pm the night before his 18th birthday, he is not subject to the death penalty, but if he commits exactly the same crime 31 minutes later he is? If only it were possible to take each single case into consideration individually. Each person is different, each crime is different, but when the laws governing the punishment are written in such a way as to allow ANYONE under 18 to get away with murder, something is wrong. It's a very touchy subject, and I'm sure it's about to cause some very heated discussion here.
In Canada kids under twelve cannot be charged with an offence. Do they know it? You betcha! Is the kill ratio on the rise? Nope!
In Canada kids under twelve cannot be charged with an offence. Do they know it? You betcha! Is the kill ratio on the rise? Nope!
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
If 18 is old enough when is too young ? 17 ,12, 8 what ?? at what age do we start to execute offenders. In the Uk the "Age of Reason" is determined at 10, so how would anyone feel about a 10 year old being executed, so if that is not acceptable how about 11 no, how about 12 then, you get my point, unless you draw a line in the sand at where adulthood starts you could slide this figure up and down accordingly.
i have stated before that I am aginst the DP in principle believing that the State should not kill, however I have never had anyone near and dear to me killed and when I see such cases as the Moors Murderers etc I feel very differently, I don't suppose I will ever resolve the two. As we do not have DP here it is a moot point.
Interestingly whenever a poll is done in the UK it almost always comes out with a large majority of the public in favour but it will never get on the statute books again because of european law.
i have stated before that I am aginst the DP in principle believing that the State should not kill, however I have never had anyone near and dear to me killed and when I see such cases as the Moors Murderers etc I feel very differently, I don't suppose I will ever resolve the two. As we do not have DP here it is a moot point.
Interestingly whenever a poll is done in the UK it almost always comes out with a large majority of the public in favour but it will never get on the statute books again because of european law.
"I have done my duty. I thank God for it!"
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
Der Wulf wrote: I'm not opposed to legal vengeance for the family, they, with no warning, or choice, were instantly and brutally deprived of their loved one, and their sense of well being and security destroyed.
A less emotional, but more pragmatic issue is why should I have to pay to warehouse this individual who has chosen to violate that most sacrosanct rule of civilization thou shall not kill.
Could not that money be better spent?
Der Wulfe, you seemed to have led a charmed life that has given you the best that life has to offer, The cost for this extravagant life is that you have lost touch with the reality that not everyone can live this charmed life.
The regaling anecdotes do not come from the streets of a ghetto. They are not indicative of a life spent struggling to even feed one's self, let alone a family. They speak of a life that is not available to everyone. Your views are just as valid as mine. My view is that you are sheltered from the storm that is society as it is.
You are a kind, loving, caring individual. But you do not extend it past your immediate life. You are unwilling to walk in another man's shoes. Because you don't you have created your arbitrary boundaries. You do not allow yourself to entertain the thought that perhaps things could be done differently. You identify with toughlove but it is not tough love that you espouse. You espouse, "No love? Tough!"
I speak from experience not fantasy.
In peace.
A less emotional, but more pragmatic issue is why should I have to pay to warehouse this individual who has chosen to violate that most sacrosanct rule of civilization thou shall not kill.
Could not that money be better spent?
Der Wulfe, you seemed to have led a charmed life that has given you the best that life has to offer, The cost for this extravagant life is that you have lost touch with the reality that not everyone can live this charmed life.
The regaling anecdotes do not come from the streets of a ghetto. They are not indicative of a life spent struggling to even feed one's self, let alone a family. They speak of a life that is not available to everyone. Your views are just as valid as mine. My view is that you are sheltered from the storm that is society as it is.
You are a kind, loving, caring individual. But you do not extend it past your immediate life. You are unwilling to walk in another man's shoes. Because you don't you have created your arbitrary boundaries. You do not allow yourself to entertain the thought that perhaps things could be done differently. You identify with toughlove but it is not tough love that you espouse. You espouse, "No love? Tough!"
I speak from experience not fantasy.
In peace.
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
Bothwell wrote:
i have stated before that I am aginst the DP in principle believing that the State should not kill, however I have never had anyone near and dear to me killed what would you feel if i were killed in the line of duty by some criminal? i know the answer to that. you'd be lobbying the judge and DA office for hanging, drawing and quartering like the bloody Brit you are!:)
i have stated before that I am aginst the DP in principle believing that the State should not kill, however I have never had anyone near and dear to me killed what would you feel if i were killed in the line of duty by some criminal? i know the answer to that. you'd be lobbying the judge and DA office for hanging, drawing and quartering like the bloody Brit you are!:)
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
lady cop wrote: what would you feel if i were killed in the line of duty by some criminal? i know the answer to that. you'd be lobbying the judge and DA office for hanging, drawing and quartering like the bloody Brit you are!:) In politics this is known as a hypothetical question. It is unreal and could be construed to be anything that you may want to make it be. Hypothetical questions are just like rhetorical questions. No answer required.
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
Hi Kens, it may well be a hypothetical, or rhetorical, however the number of murdered cops down here makes it a distinct and realistic possibility on any given day. it's one of the facts of life for LE.
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
lady cop wrote: Hi Kens, it may well be a hypothetical, or rhetorical, however the number of murdered cops down here makes it a distinct and realistic possibility on any given day. it's one of the facts of life for LE.
There is no doubt that too many police lives are lost. The deaths in Canada this past week are an exception to the rule whereas in America they are the norm. Anyone that kills a policeperson is gone from society forever. No second chance. History.
The crime, were the killer not dead, would be a minimum of twenty five years and the possibility of never getting out until you are dead. He was not only wounded by the police but he decided to kill himself.
This is the attitude of a lot of people that decide to kill cops. They are going to be fighting in a losing battle and they will probably be going out in a blaze of glory otherwise known as committing suicide by trying to hold out against a superior trained force that kill them just before they get to give up. Suicide by avenging policepeople.
They are too chicken to kill themselves. They cause grief to people and their names will be in the newspapers because they have made their mark on society.
Guaranteeing that the killers die in order to make sure that no other policeperson will die at their hands is the proper way to make sure that those that put their lives on the line know that their killers won't get away it. If I was going to put my life on the line then that is the least that I would expect for my services to the public. Instant death or death after years of expense brought through the judicial process wil not bring them back and has not been shown to stop the senseless murders of innocent people doing their jobs and duty.
The Birdman Of Alcatraz should be the norm and not the exception to killing law enforcement officers. Never to walk the streets of free men ever again is just as damning as being killed after a short period of time. No matter how good you are in prison you never are in society ever again. In the long run it is cheaper and also in the long run they will be suffering their fate on earth to be followed by their fate in the next life.
There is no doubt that too many police lives are lost. The deaths in Canada this past week are an exception to the rule whereas in America they are the norm. Anyone that kills a policeperson is gone from society forever. No second chance. History.
The crime, were the killer not dead, would be a minimum of twenty five years and the possibility of never getting out until you are dead. He was not only wounded by the police but he decided to kill himself.
This is the attitude of a lot of people that decide to kill cops. They are going to be fighting in a losing battle and they will probably be going out in a blaze of glory otherwise known as committing suicide by trying to hold out against a superior trained force that kill them just before they get to give up. Suicide by avenging policepeople.
They are too chicken to kill themselves. They cause grief to people and their names will be in the newspapers because they have made their mark on society.
Guaranteeing that the killers die in order to make sure that no other policeperson will die at their hands is the proper way to make sure that those that put their lives on the line know that their killers won't get away it. If I was going to put my life on the line then that is the least that I would expect for my services to the public. Instant death or death after years of expense brought through the judicial process wil not bring them back and has not been shown to stop the senseless murders of innocent people doing their jobs and duty.
The Birdman Of Alcatraz should be the norm and not the exception to killing law enforcement officers. Never to walk the streets of free men ever again is just as damning as being killed after a short period of time. No matter how good you are in prison you never are in society ever again. In the long run it is cheaper and also in the long run they will be suffering their fate on earth to be followed by their fate in the next life.
Supremes Strike Down Death Penalty for Juveniles
EXCELLENT post Kens...and my heart went out to those brave mounties. :-1