News-Record.com Staff Blogs: Letters to the Editor: Court ruling centers on defendant's age: Court ruling centers on defendant's age

« Driver's license bill promotes xenophobia | Main | Trees deserve more respect and protection »

Court ruling centers on defendant's age

The question before the Supreme Court was very straightforward, did the death sentence imposed on Christopher Simmons (Roper v Simmons) violate the 8th Amendment to the Constitution?

Simmons, who was 17 years old at the time, bragged that he was going to murder someone, describing in detail how he would commit the crime, and "get away with it," because he was a minor.

A few hours later, Simmons and his accomplice broke into the home of Shirley Cook. Cook was wrapped in duct tape, her head was covered with a towel, and her legs and hands were tied with electrical wire.

Then he drove her to a bridge and threw her into the water, where helpless, she drowned.

Did the death sentence of Simmons constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment?

No, the court was not concerned with whether being assaulted in your home, wrapped in a towel, duct tape and electrical wire and thrown off a bridge was "cruel and unusual "punishment. That is OK.

The court was only concerned with whether it was "cruel and unusual" to execute the 17-year-old murderer who committed the crime.

Donald Bernstein
Kernersville

Posted by News & Record on March 12, 2005 3:00 AM | Permalink

Comments (10)

A person pondering premeditated murder should have to consider that the taking of another person's life is the same as taking their own.

In the case of Shirley Cook, there were many aggravating factors. The law is saying that a person can be 17 (plus 364 days) old at the time of the crime, just don't look at the fact that the victim was force-fed Drano sandwiches and chopped into ant fodder on their front lawn.

Posted by Steve | March 12, 2005 9:49 AM

Home break-in crimes should carry a minimum 50 year prison sentence, even if no one was harmed.

Posted by Brian Harper | March 12, 2005 4:13 PM

If a 17 year old can not be executed for murder, they may need to consider the parent for punishment since they are responsible for the minor child.
Who else can be held acountable for the killing of this innocent person?
Someone has got to accept the responsibility for this injustice.

Posted by F Reid | March 13, 2005 1:40 AM

F Reid,
Just because the 17 year old isn't executed, does not mean that he hasn't been held accountable. Killing someone for killing someone certainly is not the only possible means of punishment.

Posted by Bob | March 14, 2005 2:31 PM

"Killing someone for killing someone certainly is not the only possible means of punishment." -

- Bob

Well Bob, it may not be the only one but it sure is a damn good one.

Posted by Tater | March 14, 2005 3:31 PM

Yes, F Reid, and while we're at it let's punish their siblings, grandparents, cousins, uncles and aunts. And their neighbors. Oh yes, and let's not forget their household pets. Justice must be served, right?

Sarcasm aside, responsibility rests solely with the responsible party. Punishing parents doesn't serve justice, but merely serves the misguided demand that someone (anyone?) pay.

Posted by Roger | March 14, 2005 3:47 PM

There is one good thing about believing in God and Heaven and Hell. You know that somebody is going to pay at some point. And you can bet it will be 100% correct and deserved every time.

Posted by mr t | March 15, 2005 12:43 PM

Some 17 year olds have been living on their own as adults for quite a while. I don't think 18 is a "magic" age for suddenly being responsible for what you did. I think anyone should accept responsibility for their actions.
I'm not sure about setting a standard age to allow execution. So far it's been done on a case-by-case basis by the trial court in deciding whether it's appropriate or not.

Posted by Patrick | March 15, 2005 7:49 PM

This is yet another case of the judiciary changing the laws to define their own opinions. What on earth is a changing standard of decency? Right and wrong are not changing ideas- something is either right or wrong, and these truths don't change with the seasons, despite what SCOTUS thinks.

It's absurd to say a "boy" can be immature one day and months later be mature and fully responsible for his actions. Simmons was ultimately right- he and his friends were minors, and, in one manner of speaking- they did get away with it. The very law was changed for this scumbag who told his buddies that they could get away with murder and not fully pay the price. Thanks to good ol' Kennedy and his dillusional pals in the supreme court.

Posted by Josh Bozeman | April 3, 2005 7:02 PM

Posted by as | September 17, 2005 2:35 PM

Court ruling centers on defendant's age

Comments (10)

Post a comment

Other Recent Entries

Archives