Supreme Court rules death penalty for juveniles to be unconstitutional

WASHINGTON -- A closely divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that it is unconstitutional to execute juvenile killers, ending a practice in 19 states that has been roundly condemned by many of America's closest allies.\nThe 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of 72 murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.\nThe executions, the court said, violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.\n"The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.\nThe ruling continues the court's practice of narrowing the scope of the death penalty, which justices reinstated in 1976. Executions for those 15 and younger when they committed their crimes were outlawed in 1988. Three years ago, justices banned death sentences for the mentally retarded.\nTuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.\nAs a result, officials in Prince William County, Va., said Tuesday they will not prosecute a murder case there against teen sniper Lee Boyd Malvo, who already is serving life in prison in two of the 10 sniper killings that terrorized the Washington area in 2002. Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert had hoped to get the death penalty for Malvo, who was 17 at the time of the killings, but he said another trial would now be an unnecessary expense.\nJuvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in only a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Kennedy cited international opposition to the practice.\n"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime," he wrote.\nKennedy noted most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers, and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he said, is to abolish the practice because "our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal."\nIn a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia disputed that there is a trend and chastised his colleagues for taking power from the states.\n"The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty,'" he wrote.\n"The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote.\nDeath penalty opponents quickly cheered the ruling.\n"Today, the court repudiated the misguided idea that the United States can pledge to leave no child behind while simultaneously exiling children to the death chamber," said William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA.\n"Now the U.S. can proudly remove its name from the embarrassing list of human rights violators that includes China, Iran and Pakistan that still execute juvenile offenders," he said.\nDianne Clements, president of the Houston-based Justice for All victims' advocacy group, criticized the decision and said she hopes that when there is a Supreme Court vacancy, a strong death penalty supporter is nominated.\n"The Supreme Court has opened the door for more innocent people to suffer by 16- and 17-year-olds," she said. "I can't wait for the Supreme Court to have judges more concerned with American values, American statutes and American law than what the Europeans think"