LA CORTE SUPREMA NON SI PRONUNCERA� SULLA PENA DI MORTE PER I MINORENNI 

GIUDICI SI SPACCANO SU ESECUZIONI DEI KILLER-RAGAZZINI

NEW YORK, 21 OTT - Dopo aver compiuto un passo storico nei mesi scorsi abolendo la condanna a morte per i ritardati mentali, la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti ha deciso di non prendere in considerazione un altro tema delicato: le esecuzioni di persone che hanno commesso reati in eta' minorile. 

I giudici di Washington si sono spaccati, 5 contro 4, chiudendo la strada alla possibilita' di pronunciarsi sulle condanne di imputati che hanno ucciso prima di aver raggiunto i 18 anni d'eta'.

   I quattro giudici supremi finiti in minoranza sostenevano che la Corte dovesse proseguire nel riesame della pena capitale cominciato lo scorso anno, che era sfociato nella sentenza sui ritardati mentali e in un'altra importante decisione che vietava ai singoli giudici di infliggere la condanna a morte. Il giudice John Paul Stevens, nel scrivere l'opinione finita in minoranza, ha definito ''vergognosa'' la pratica di giustiziare persone che avevano 16 o 17 anni all'epoca dei delitti. ''Questa pratica e' una reliquia del passato - ha scritto Stevens - ed e' incoerente con l'evoluzione degli standard di dignita' nella societa' civilizzata''.

    Ma la Corte ha respinto la possibilita' di valutare se la pratica delle esecuzioni per reati minorili costituisca una ''punizione crudele e inusuale'' e pertento se vada ritenuta incostituzionale. Il caso specifico all'attenzione dei giudici, che hanno deciso di non valutarlo, era quello di Kevin Nigel Stanford, un detenuto di 39 anni che si trova nel braccio della morte in Kentucky per aver sequestrato, sodomizzato e ucciso una ragazza quando aveva 17 anni.

   Gli Stati Uniti sono uno dei pochi paesi al mondo che ammette l'esecuzione di killer autori di reati in eta' minorile.

   Attualmente, 16 dei 38 stati degli Usa dove e' in vigore la pena capitale la proibiscono per chi ha ucciso prima dei 18 anni ed anche il sistema giudiziario federale non prevede esecuzioni per reati minorili.

Supreme Court Won't Review Juvenile Death Penalty

Oct 21,2002

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON  - Despite a dissent by the court's four liberal justices who called the juvenile death penalty a shameful practice, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) rejected on Monday an appeal challenging as unconstitutional executions of people who were younger than 18 when they committed their crimes.

And in a second death penalty case, the high court denied an appeal by a Florida convicted murderer who claimed the more than 27 years he has spent in prison since his initial sentence amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), joined by Justices David Souter (news - web sites), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites), wrote in dissent that the court should hear the juvenile death penalty case, outlawing executions of those under the age of 18 when they commit their crime.

"The practice of executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society. We should put an end to this shameful practice," Stevens said.

In 1988, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the executions of offenders age 15 or younger at the time of their crimes.

But the high court in 1989 ruled that executions of those who commit their crimes at age 16 or 17 do not violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Stevens said that in the past 13 years, a national consensus has emerged that juvenile offenders should not be executed, and said the Supreme Court should revisit the issue.

The high court in June used a similar rationale, ruling by a 6-3 vote that a national consensus had emerged to declare unconstitutional executions of criminals who are mentally retarded.

Since 1989, five states have outlawed the execution of those under age 18, Stevens said.

'ERRATIC BEHAVIORS'

Stevens said adolescents are more impulsive than adults.

 "Neurocientific evidence of the last few years has revealed that adolescent brains are not fully developed, which often leads to erratic behaviors and thought processes in that age group," Stevens said.

 Stevens also cited a poll taken in 2001 that found that a majority of Americans said the death penalty should not apply to juvenile offenders.

 Currently, 38 states and the federal government have the death penalty. Sixteen states and the federal government have an age minimum of at least 18 for capital punishment, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

 It said five states have set age 17 as the minimum while the other 17 states use age 16 as the minimum age.

 The case involved a petition of writ of habeas corpus by Kevin Nigel Stanford, who was 17 when he committed his murder. It was Stanford's case, from Kentucky, that led to the Supreme Court's 1989 ruling.

 Stanford was convicted of killing a woman by shooting her point blank in the face and a second time in the head after raping her during a robbery of a gasoline station in Jefferson County, Kentucky, on Jan. 7, 1981.

 The other case involved Charles Foster, whose execution has been delayed after he twice successfully challenged his sentencing proceedings. He was resentenced to death in 1993 for the 1975 murder of a 68-year-old Ohio tourist.

 Breyer said in dissent that he would grant Foster's appeal.

 "Death row's inevitable anxieties and uncertainties have been sharpened by the issuance of two death warrants and three judicial reprieves," he said.

 "If executed, Foster, now 55, will have been punished both by death and also by more than a generation spent in death row's twilight. It is fairly asked whether such punishment is both unusual and cruel," Breyer said.

 Justice Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) replied to Breyer, saying Foster could have ended his "anxieties and uncertainties" by simply submitting to his execution. Thomas dismissed Foster's claim as "meritless."

USA: Court Refuses Teen Execution Case

The Supreme Court, which recently abolished executions for the mentally retarded, was bitterly divided Monday in refusing to consider also ending the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes.

 Four justices said the court should continue a reexamination of the death penalty begun in earnest last year.

 But the court passed up a chance to reopen the question of whether executing very young killers violates the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." Currently, states that allow the death penalty may impose it on killers who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crimes.

 "The practice of executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. "We should put an end to this shameful practice."

 Breyer also wrote separately to say the court should consider a second death penalty case that asks whether it was unconstitutional to leave inmates for decades on death row. He said Florida inmate Charles Foster has spent more than 27 years in prison and "if executed, Foster, now 55, will have been punished both by death and also by more than a generation spent in death row's twilight. It is fairly asked whether such punishment is both unusual and cruel."

 Justices refused to consider Foster's case, as well as the case of a Kentucky man sentenced to death for abducting, sodomizing and killing a gas station attendant when he was 17. The body of the 20-year-old victim was left sprawled over the rear seat of her mother's car, with her jeans and underwear pulled to her ankles. She had been shot in the face.

 Prosecutors said Kevin Nigel Stanford bragged about what he and 2 other teenagers had done.

 Stanford, now 39, has been on death row since 1982. In 1989, the high court used Stanford's case to uphold juvenile executions.

 Only the United States and a handful of other countries allow execution of juvenile killers, and Stanford's lawyers argued that such executions violate not only the Constitution but an international treaty signed by the United States.

 Neither this case nor last term's landmark ruling on the mentally retarded address the constitutionality or morality of the death penalty as a whole.

 Like the retardation question, the issue of juvenile killers turns on the individuals' capacity to understand their situation, and their level of culpability. Also like the retardation question, this one questions whether the country has changed its mind about what kind of punishment is appropriate.

 The court relied heavily on the actions of state legislatures in deciding to ban executions of the retarded. On that issue, the court said the large number of states that had acted on their own to ban such executions showed that the nation no longer supported the practice.

 "In the last 13 years, a national consensus has developed that juvenile offenders should not be executed," Stevens wrote in the dissent.

 The court's refusal to hear the case was expected. A delay seemed likely because it would give more state legislatures a chance to do their own reexamination of the practice, much as they did with the retardation issue.

 Currently, 16 of the 38 states that allow the death penalty prohibit it for those under 18. The federal government also prohibits the practice for juveniles prosecuted in federal court. Two states, Montana and Indiana, have enacted their prohibition laws since the court last considered the Stanford case in 1989.

 "The evolving norms of decency have come to the point where we as a country have decided its no longer appropriate to execute the mentally retarded. I think the time has also come to reassess whether it is no longer appropriate to execute our children," said Margaret O'Donnell, a lawyer for Stanford.

 The case is Stanford v. Parker, 01-10009. 

 NATIONAL COALITION TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY

PRESS RELEASE

SUPREME COURT'S REFUSAL TO TAKE JUVENILE OFFENDER CASE SHOWS NEED FOR STATE LOBBYING

Today's announcement that a divided U.S. Supreme Court will not act to halt the execution of juvenile offenders means opponents of such executions must refocus their efforts at the state legislative level, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty said Monday.

 The Supreme Court indicated that it has decided on a 5-4 vote that it will not hear the case of Kevin Stanford of Kentucky, who was 17 years old when he murdered a gas station attendant. 22 states allow the execution of juvenile offenders, although just 2 states -- Alabama and Texas -- account for the majority of the approximately 80 juvenile offenders currently on death row. The past 6 juvenile offenders executed in the United States have been African American and all have been from Texas, including 3 executed this year, one executed in 2001 and 2 executed in 2000.

 Steven W. Hawkins, NCADP executive director, noted that a recent Gallup poll showed 69 % of Americans oppose the death penalty for juvenile offenders and that state legislators increasingly are debating bills to ban the practice. Earlier this year, for example, the state of Indiana enacted a ban on juvenile executions, and since 2001 bills raising the minimum age for execution to 18 have passed 1 legislative chamber in Florida, Kentucky and Texas. Bills raising the age to 18 also have been introduced in an additional 7 states -- Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania and South Dakota.

 "No civilized society executes juvenile offenders," Hawkins said. "Juveniles have lesser capacity for reflective judgment and impulse control than adult offenders. We once believed the human brain was fully developed by age 14. We now know that the brain is still developing beyond the age of 17. Unfortunately, our criminal justice system has not kept pace with recent discoveries in the area of the behavioral sciences."

 Hawkins added that the execution of juvenile offenders in the United States is largely based on race and geography. "Texas has accounted for 13 of the 21 juvenile offender executions in the United States during the past two decades," he said. "9 of the 13 juvenile offenders executed in Texas have been African American or Latino. The death penalty in the United States disproportionately affects people of color and this is even more true when it comes to juvenile offenders."

 Finally, Hawkins said that when state legislators begin convening for their 2003 legislative sessions, they should apply the same reasoning to the execution of juvenile offenders that the U.S. Supreme Court this past summer applied when it decided to ban the execution of mentally retarded people. "The mind of a juvenile offender is by definition less developed than the mind of an adult," Hawkins said. "Juvenile minds do not handle social pressure, instinctual urges and other stresses the way that adult minds do. Juvenile offenders therefore cannot be held to the same degree of culpability as adults, just as mentally retarded people cannot be held to the same degree of culpability. We now ban the execution of mentally retarded offenders. There can be little justification for applying a different standard when it comes to juveniles."

 *************************************************************** 

The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty was founded in 1976 and is the only fully-staffed national organization devoted specifically to abolishing the death penalty. NCADP is comprised of more than 100 local, state, national and international affiliates.