Once again, five Supreme Court justices released the monster of the “living constitution” upon us to trample on the principles of representative government, separation of powers and federalism.
Last week, the 5-4 majority declared the implementation of the death penalty upon people who commit their crimes as juveniles to be unconstitutional and threw out the sentences of 70 juvenile murders. Citing international opinion and using creative numbers to create a “national consensus,” the majority declared that our “evolving standards of decency” have progressed and now deem this practice employed in 20 states to be “cruel and unusual punishment.”
In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy establishes a magical line of 18 years old. Upon achieving this birthday, you are transformed into a human being who is able to morally reason and be held responsible for your actions. Do you really need 18 years of life-experience to know that murder is the greatest of moral wrongs? It’s a hard argument to make especially in the case that gave us this newest act of judicial legislation, Roper v. Simmons.
The killer at issue in this case predicted his judicial success prior to committing the murder. Describing to his friends in callous detail his plans for the murder, Christopher Simmons bragged that he would be able to get away with it because he was a juvenile. He then put his plans into action. Simmons broke into the home of an innocent woman, bound her with duct tape and electrical wire, then drove her to a bridge where he hurled her alive and conscious into a river. Simmons was seventh months shy of turning 18 at the time of the murder.
The establishment of this bright-line rule takes away the ability of jurors to weigh the individual facts of the case and impose the death-penalty at their discretion thereby producing absurd outcomes. Consider the case of Whitney Lee Reeves. He was sentenced to death for slaying of a 14-year-old girl and her 40-year-old father with a 12-gauge shotgun at the victims’ apartment in Beaumont, Texas. Reeves was within a few hours of his 18th birthday at the time of the crime. He will now be removed from death row because he was lucky enough to kill mere hours before the clock tolled on his 18th birthday.
Few can think of anyone more deserving of this ultimate punishment, than Lee Boyd Malvo. When he was 17, Malvo terrorized the DC area for 3 weeks sniping 13 random victims from the trunk of a car. He is also accused of slaying others en route to his sniping spree in numerous jurisdictions including Baton Rouge. Yet, this killer has been allowed to keep his life, unlike 10 of his victims.
Another one of these juvenile killers who lack the ability to make the most basic moral decision committed began his murderous deed on this campus. Craving a ride to visit his girlfriend, 17 year-old Dale Dwayne Craig, now 29, abducted LSU freshman Kipp Earl Gullett from a University parking lot outside Kirby Smith Hall, shot him in the head repeatedly and stole his car.
To bolster their case, the majority selectively chose studies to provide “scientific” evidence that juveniles lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their actions. One such study was from the American Psychological Association. But as Justice Scalia pointed out, the APA produced a study in a previous case that claimed a “rich body of research” showed juveniles were mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion without parental consent. The majority opinion then begins expounding on the weight of the international communities opinion. They tell us that we stand alone in permitting the execution of juveniles. Despite that they are factually wrong, Kennedy gives no legitimate reason for international opinion and trends to be a controlling factor in the interpretation of the United States Constitution. This is because there isn’t one.
The court’s decision also is an affront to the federalist nature of our system. Grappling for yet another basis for their decision, the majority declares a national consensus exists against the death penalty. Notwithstanding the fact that a majority of states with the death penalty still permitted execution of minors, the court imposes the policy of Vermont upon Louisiana and Texas. So much for state sovereignty.
The death penalty has been with us throughout the history of our nation and is most certainly constitutional. Any limits of that penalty should be left to the wisdom of the people and their representatives in the legislative bodies. Political issues are to be decided in the legislative chambers not the private chambers of judges.
It is long time that the idea of a “living constitution” be put to rest. As long as it lives and breathes, we will be subjected to judicial legislation and a constitution that evolves with subjective belief of the five justices and like minded foreigners.