Only a Lad
You may remember Lee Boyd Malvo. He was one of those two black guys in the small green car who, according to some crackerjack police chief named after a moose, together equaled one white guy driving one large white truck who went around popping people in the greater D.C. area back in 2002 for target practice. Today was his lucky day. Courtesy of the Supreme “Court’s” decision, Malvo can’t be executed, either. Isn’t that special?
Meanwhile, here’s a thumbnail sketch of Christopher Simmons, that sweet, innocent Midwestern boy whose precious life was very nearly snuffed out by the State of Missouri before five members of the U.S. Supreme Court rode in to the rescue. Bear in mind, these facts are from the first two pages of the majority opinion, not from any of the four dissenters who would have had Simmons fry.
At the age of 17, when he was still a junior in high school, Christopher Simmons, the respondent here, committed murder. About nine months later, after he had turned 18, he was tried and sentenced to death. There is little doubt that Simmons was the instigator of the crime. Before its commission, Simmons said he wanted to murder someone. In chilling, callous terms he talked about his plan, discussing it for the most part with two friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, then aged 15 and 16 respectively. Simmons proposed to commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering, typing up a victim, and throwing the victim off a bridge. Simmons assured his friends they could “get away with it” because they were minors.
The three met at about 2 a.m. on the night of the murder, but Tessmer left before the other two set out. (The State later charged Tessmer with conspiracy, but dropped the charge in exchange for his testimony against Simmons.) Simmons and Benjamin entered the home of the victim, Shirley Crook, after reaching through an open window and unlocking the back door. Simmons turned on a hallway light. Awakened, Mrs. Crook called out, “Who’s there?” In response Simmons entered Mrs. Crook’s bedroom, where he recognized her from a previous car accdient involvong them both. Simmons later admitted this confirmed his response to murder her.
Using duct tape to cover her eyes and mouth and bind her hands, the two perpetrators put Mrs. Crook in her minivan, and drove to a state park. They reinforced the bindings, covered her head with a towel, and walked her to a railroad trestle spanning the Meramec River. There they tied her hands and feet together with electrical wire, wrapped her whole face in duct tape and threw her from the bridge, drowning her in the waters below.
By the afternoon of September 9 [1993], Steven Crook had returned home from an overnight trip, found his bedroom in disarray, and reported his wife missing. On the same afternoon fishermen recovered the victim’s body from the river. Simmons, meanwhile, was bragging about the killing, telling friends he had killed a woman “because the bitch seen my face.”
[Emphasis added.]
This is the guy who the state can’t execute on account of his age. After all, all he did was break into an innocent stranger’s house while she slept, kidnap her from her own bedroom, and torture and kill her for sport. Sleep tight.
UPDATE: More required reading for those who think today’s ruling was the correct one. Not that they will read it, of course.
March 1st, 2005 at 6:54 pm
What emphasis was added? Can see none (Firefox or IE).
March 1st, 2005 at 7:35 pm
Crud, neither could I. I just substituted bold tags for strong; it should display now.
March 1st, 2005 at 8:16 pm
I like that idea, from now on when referring to the Supreme “Court” I will always put court in quotes. After all, the Supreme “Court” is really turning into the Uber-legislature as we speak. Although, this is exactly what I’d like to see, the Supreme “Court” lose some of the respect of which it appears to be very lightly entitled to.
March 1st, 2005 at 9:37 pm
I don’t support the death penalty under any circumstances.
My Christian faith is that Christ can redeem anyone.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:08 pm
Fair enough, but where Christ says “go and sin no more,” society can’t afford to do that. I’m not sure I could forgive anyone for doing something like that to me, and I’m even less sure that I even have a moral right to “forgive” a wrong committed against someone else.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:23 pm
XRLQ,
Christianity isn’t a significant influence on American life, I will grant that.
Is there any age at all for which you would oppose the death penalty?
March 1st, 2005 at 10:36 pm
If it were up to me, there’d be a presumption that anyone under 18 is too young to understand what he’s doing, which presumption could be rebutted by roughly the same criteria which are used to determine which juveniles should be tried as adults for non-capital crimes. I’m not sure I’d want to execute anybody under 15 or 16, but then again, I’m almost not sure I’d want to constitutionalize that preference. The only part I could see constitutionalizing is the common law age of maturity, which is too low to do any good as a practical matter.
March 2nd, 2005 at 4:45 am
The Case For The Juvenile Death Penalty
People under the legal age of 18 should be executed for their crimes. A lot of people think that kids under 18 should not face the death penalty. I beg to differ. People get the death penalty for premeditated murder….
March 2nd, 2005 at 6:52 am
The theological basis behind why Christ can forgive the world’s sin is because ultimately, all sins are committed against Christ. While you may say “I don’t support the death penalty under any circumstances. My Christian faith is that Christ can redeem anyone.” And that is true, but it doesn’t change that Jack can not forgive Jill for Jill’s crime against Sam. Christ can work such forgiveness because Jill’ sin is both against Sam and God.
Additionally, the death penalty is important to represent Society’s greatest disapproval to certain acts. While yes it should be used sparingly, the availablity of the death penalty is important in maintaining a sense of moral cohesion.
March 2nd, 2005 at 10:15 am
Joel,
I could see some readings where Christ basically takes the place of the Christian community, or more broadly, as society, and that as a member of society (or part of the body of Christ, as I’ve heard some say), that crime has been committed not only against the victim, but against society (or Christ), but against all its members.
That said, any reasonable person would acknowledge that the share of the crime committed against me is so miniscule compared to that of the victim that I’m basically splitting hairs.
March 2nd, 2005 at 11:53 am
I would have been much happier had the court set up a rule for 16- and 17-year olds making it harder but not impossible to execute them; the instant case was such that the dude really asked to be fried. Ah, well.
On the religious front, I had a case with a defense attorney, who relayed the following from God through his client:
Attorney: You should take this deal. They have you on videotape, and they have a signed confession.
Client (20-year-old female): God has told me I will be acquitted.
Attorney: Then you need God as your lawyer, because while I represent you, you’re likely to be convicted.
–JRM
March 2nd, 2005 at 12:00 pm
I don’t think it is possible to both forgive someone and to put them to death. That would be as if a friend wronged me and I told them I forgave them but in the next breath said I would never speak to them again.
I believe the death penalty simply represents a sick blood lust.
March 2nd, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Joel T, I’m not sure that’s an argument against the penalty in particular, so much as an argument against punishment of any kind. How is it possible to forgive somebody and incarcerate them? Particularly if their crime is nonviolent and the risk of recidivism low (e.g., most white collar crimes)?
March 2nd, 2005 at 12:27 pm
XRLQ,
You don’t see a substantial difference between incarcerating someone and executing them? Someone locked up without parole still has a chance at some life. A person executed has no possibility of life at all.
March 2nd, 2005 at 12:50 pm
Of course there’s a substantial difference, but forgiveness ain’t it. To borrow your own example, there’s an even bigger difference between executing someone and telling them you’ll never speak to them again. All three, however, violate the turn-the-other-cheek model of criminal justice you appear to be advocating.
March 2nd, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Locking someone up for life without the possibility of parole is turning the other cheek?
I’m not casual about murder. I lost one of my very dearest friends to rape/murder in 1980. I believe that justice can and often should be very harsh. For me, capital punishment crosses from punishment to vengeance, which I see as reserved to God. However, I understand that society disagrees with me and I have to live with that.
Also, as far as turning the other cheek, I believe that applies to indivudals, not society and that it is something of a hyperbole that Jesus spoke in and not intended to be taken absolutely literally. For that reason, I believe someone has the right to take someone else’s life in self-defense. Nevetheless, “turn the other cheek” speaks a valuable lesson about the reconciling possibilities of forgiveness. It is one of the reasons I’ve never seriously considered suing another person and probably wouldn’t except under the most extreme circumstances.
March 3rd, 2005 at 12:41 pm
So is mine. The possibility of redemption—however—does not negate the Lord’s mandate of punishment (Gen. 9:6.).
The legal system should not concern itself with the age of the accused, but to three facts regarding the defendant: 1) certain identity as perpetrator, 2) plausible intent, and 3) egregiousness of conduct. When these things are ascertained, the punishment will fit the crime irrespective of the defendant’s age.
That’s way over the top. Sickness is properly represented as causeless harm perpetrated upon the innocent, not reasoned justice meted upon the guilty.
Vengeance is indeed reserved to God, but God has invested man with the rights and prerogatives of punishment. (Gen. 9:6 cited above, and Rom. 13:4.)
March 3rd, 2005 at 12:41 pm
I think the problem xlrq is pointing out and people aren’t getting is that we don’t want the COURT to set up any kind of standard. That’s a job for the legislatures and/or Congress; the legislature in this instance has a rule clearly allowing for the execution of a minor and the Missouri Supreme Court — and now the US Supreme Court — has decided that they are going to undo the will of the people, as expressed through legitimately passed legislation. That’s the real outrage, and it’s an outrage no matter where you stand on the death penalty. It’s an outrage that all of us should be concerned about; but many are willing to overlook because they like the particular outcome of the case. Pay attention, now — someday it will be an issue you DON’T agree with, and then you’ll be mad, but it will be too late.
March 3rd, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Bingo. That was exactly my objection to Lawrence v. Texas, the sodomy case, at the time that was handed down. I had no use for laws against sodomy, but I also knew there was no guarantee future “constitutional” rulings would similarly match my political preferences.
March 3rd, 2005 at 2:37 pm
I saw a poll today that 69% of Americans oppose executing people for crimes committed as juveniles. That would seem to lend support to the idea that such punishment is cruel and unusual.
As for the Book of Genesis, I don’t believe that is any longer the gold standard for punishing murder, but rather it is the commandment of love of neighbor. Anyway, note that God spared Cain’s life. How much worse can one get than killing a brother?
Nevertheless, faith can only be used as a theological entry point and that different faith perspectives and non-faith perspectives have their place in discussion for we are not, and I do not support, theocracy.