Juvenile Murderers

[cmotherofpirl]

The Right Frame of Mind
Juvenile Murderers: They Couldn't Have Known Better

By Rev. Mark H. Creech
March 7, 2005

(AgapePress) - It was September 1997. Kevin Golphin, 17, and his brother Timon, 19, had robbed at gunpoint a finance company worker in Kingstree, South Carolina. They had stolen a car as part of their getaway and were headed north on Interstate 95, when North Carolina Highway Patrolman Ed Lowry pulled the two over for a simple seat belt violation. After calling in the license plate number, Lowry learned the car was stolen and Cumberland County Sheriff's deputy David Hathcock arrived for backup.

As the two officers attempted to arrest Kevin, a struggle ensued and Timon opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle on both Lowry and Hathcock. Both officers lay helplessly on the ground bleeding, when Kevin took Lowry's pistol and at point blank range shot both men to death.

During the trial, The Fayetteville Observer Times reported that Cumberland County District Attorney Ed Grannis held up the blood stained clothing of the slain officers and told jurors: "There's blood on that seal from the Highway Patrol and there's blood on that deputy sheriff's uniform. There's blood on the seal of the state of North Carolina .... If ever a punishment of death is appropriate, this is the time." The jury agreed, sentencing both Golphins to death in May of 1998, a sentence the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld in 2000.

All of that changes, however, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the execution of murderers who committed their crimes while under the age of 18 is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Although Kevin Golphin's murder of two law enforcement officers was exceptionally notorious, sentencing him to death is now considered "cruel and unusual punishment." Golphin is off death row and both Lowry and Hathcock's blood must cry out from the ground!!!

The High Court's ruling affects 70 cases in 19 states, which allow the execution of juveniles. In a 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion, citing a supposed consensus against the juvenile death penalty by state legislatures, the Court's own conclusion the death penalty is disproportionate punishment for minors, and overwhelming international opinion against the practice.

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia effectively countered each argument for the High Court's decision. Scalia noted the Court's decision to abolish the death penalty for juveniles was "because 18 states -- or 47 percent of states that permit capital punishment -- now have legislation prohibiting the execution of offenders under 18."

"Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50 percent of death penalty states can constitute a national consensus," said Scalia. With regard to the death penalty being disproportionate for minors, Scalia declared, "Juries 'maintain a link between contemporary community values and the penal system' that this Court cannot claim for itself."

Scalia's most scathing remark, however, was made against the notion that international opinion should play a role in the High Court's decision. "Because I do not believe the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five members of the Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent," said the justice.

No, Tuesday, March 1, 2005, was not a good day for justice. Sally Satel, both a medical doctor and practicing psychiatrist, a lecturer at Yale Medical School, and W.H. Brady Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said on CNN Student News that the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to abolish the death penalty for juveniles was an assault on personal responsibility. In a USA Today article last February, Satel contended: "To be sure, adolescent brains neither look nor function the same as adult brains. Teens can be reckless: they often drive too fast, drink too much, and skateboard down staircases. But premeditated murder? The brains of 6-year-olds are far less developed than teens', but even they fully understand that binding an innocent person and throwing her off of a bridge is wrong."

Satel was specifically referring to Christopher Simmons, whose case, Roper v. Simmons, the High Court considered in making it's ruling against the execution of minors. Simmons, who was 17 at the time, decided with some friends it would be "cool" to murder someone. Simmons' idea was to find an individual to burglarize, tie up, and then throw off a bridge. His contention was that he and his friends would get away with the crime because of their ages. In what was clearly a premeditated act, Simmons broke into the home of Shirley Crook, kicked and beat her incessantly, bound her with duct tape and electrical wire, abducted her by way of her own mini-van, and preceded to take her to the Meramec River in St. Louis County, Missouri. Crook pleaded for her life, but Simmons coldly pushed her from a train trestle into the murky waters below. "Bubble, bubble," said Simmons as Crook sank to her death.

Are we to believe for a moment Simmons wasn't responsible for his actions because he was only 17? Nonsense! He knew exactly what he was doing and even acknowledged to a friend that he killed Crook because she had seen his face. Simmons clearly understood he could be sentenced to death if he was caught, but was convinced he would escape such consequences as a minor. Yet, this is the case upon which the U.S. Supreme Court decided juveniles can't be morally culpable enough to deserve the death penalty. It boggles the mind!!!

Moreover, the High Court's decision now sets into place a double standard in legal precedent. Karen England of the Capital Resource Institute summarizes the matter, saying; "We find it perplexing that the laws in our country, on the one hand, recognize the immaturity of young people to commit crimes while, on the other hand, declare that 12-year-old children in California are allegedly 'mature' enough to make decisions regarding obtaining an abortion."

For all those who believe juveniles are never culpable enough to deserve capital punishment, consider this: Not everyone in hell is over the age of 18. God holds individuals responsible according to their abilities at whatever age to discern right and wrong. In our system of justice, juries are best able to discern all the mitigating factors and determine how culpable a minor is -- not high-and-mighty black robed dictators who would be, as Justice Scalia put it: "the sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards."

[Brother Adam]

Not everyone in hell is over the age of 18, but we don't decide who goes to hell and who doesn't. The Church is clear on the matter, thus I submit my will to the will of the Church.

[Guest Eremite]

We could make the entire debate moot by not executing anybody, unless absolutely necessary.

btw, St. Alphonsus Liguori relates a story about a 5 year old who reached the age of reason, cursed God, and was sent to hell.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Eremite

[cmotherofpirl]

Or we could go with natural law that if you deliberately take an innocent life you forfeit your own.

[Winchester]

Well, one is less dead if murdered by a juvenile, so it just makes sense.

[Guest Eremite]

Such is not natural law, but was Divine Law in the Old Covenant. Natural law is something which is necessary by nature. Nature does not demand a man who has killed be killed. The Holy Father, for example, cites St. Ambrose in "Evangelium Vitae" noting that God did not kill Cain, preferring the correction of the sinner rather than his death:

"And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, "put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him" (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel's death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is pre- cisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes: 'Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God's mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. ... God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide.'"

Edited March 8, 2005 by Eremite

[Norseman82]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 7 2005, 08:20 PM'] Satel was specifically referring to Christopher Simmons, whose case, Roper v. Simmons, the High Court considered in making it's ruling against the execution of minors. Simmons, who was 17 at the time, decided with some friends it would be "cool" to murder someone. Simmons' idea was to find an individual to burglarize, tie up, and then throw off a bridge. His contention was that he and his friends would get away with the crime because of their ages. In what was clearly a premeditated act, Simmons broke into the home of Shirley Crook, kicked and beat her incessantly, bound her with duct tape and electrical wire, abducted her by way of her own mini-van, and preceded to take her to the Meramec River in St. Louis County, Missouri. Crook pleaded for her life, but Simmons coldly pushed her from a train trestle into the murky waters below. "Bubble, bubble," said Simmons as Crook sank to her death.

Are we to believe for a moment Simmons wasn't responsible for his actions because he was only 17? Nonsense! He knew exactly what he was doing and even acknowledged to a friend that he killed Crook because she had seen his face. Simmons clearly understood he could be sentenced to death if he was caught, but was convinced he would escape such consequences as a minor. Yet, this is the case upon which the U.S. Supreme Court decided juveniles can't be morally culpable enough to deserve the death penalty. It boggles the mind!!!

[/quote]
This may sound cold, but it is precisely criminals like these - ones without consciences - that I fear may be unrehabilitatable and among those that pose the most danger to society.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]This may sound cold, but it is precisely criminals like these - ones without consciences - that I fear may be unrehabilitatable and among those that pose the most danger to society.[/quote]

Hence life without parole.

The story he tells about Christopher Simmons is shocking, no doubt, but the person who blasphemes the name of God deserves to die just as much as Christopher Simmons. Indeed, such persons were stoned to death in the Old Covenant. If we all received precisely what we deserved, we'd all be dead.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 7 2005, 11:05 PM']
Hence life without parole.
[/quote]
I think what is the most effective punishment is the subject of another debate, but I do want to point out that a judge commuted Charles Manson's death sentence and now Manson is up for parole every two years. A judge in the future might declare that parole is a constitutional right, putting us back to square one.

[Paladin D]

A friend of mine sent me a [b]pro-capital punishment[/b] website that stated that it costs more to execute a criminal, than it is to keep him in jail for life. I'll have to find a link...

[Brother Adam]

With the number of appeals that the public pays for, I believe it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 8 2005, 12:46 AM'] Such is not natural law, but was Divine Law in the Old Covenant.
[/quote]



But since we aren't capable of sending them to Mars or Venus....
and I don't recall Divine Law being abrogated.

Edited March 8, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]I don't recall Divine Law being abrogated.[/quote]

Ok. Well, the next time you hear someone take the name of the Lord in vain, be sure to pick up those stones and get to work.

[quote]since we aren't capable of sending them to Mars or Venus[/quote]

No, we're capable of sending them to a maximum security prison where they'll spend the rest of their days.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 8 2005, 01:05 AM']
Hence life without parole.

[/quote]
So we are to feed, house, clothe, and give free health care to murderers for the rest of their natural lives, when good people can't get medical care or out of rat infested housing?

Is freedom our greatest commodity? I think life is more precious than freedom.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]So we are to feed, house, clothe, and give free health care to murderers for the rest of their natural lives[/quote]

No. We can make sure they work in prison, and thereby pay their debt to society. Even murderers aren't disposable waste. They are creatures of God, who can never lose their personal dignity.

And as Paladin pointed out above, it costs more money to execute someone than to imprison them for life.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Eremite