Court overstepped in ruling out execution of 17-year-olds

To paraphrase another social battle cry, the execution of juveniles in the United States should be legal and rare. While every murder is an affront to society, some are so premeditated and so cold-blooded that they demand the ultimate punishment -- even if the perpetrator was less than 18 years old when the crime was committed.
When the Constitution was written, the execution of 7-year-olds was accepted practice. Now all but 20 states either outlaw capital punishment or set the threshold at 18 (Ohio is one of the 30; Pennsylvania one of the 20). Those differences indicate that states are taking their individual responsibilities seriously.
But in its 5-4 decision last week, the Supreme Court of the United States overreached. In an effort to make the national policy more in tune with international norms, it told every state that to execute criminals for murders committed when they were 16 or 17 years old violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
A young monster
The case that went to the Supreme Court was that of Christopher Simmons of Missouri. In 1993 Simmons, then 17, and a 15-year-old accomplice broke into Shirley Crook's home, bound her with duct tape and electrical cord and threw her into the Meramec River, where she drowned.
This was a murder that Simmons planned, he bragged in advance of his intention to commit it and even made reference to his belief that because he was a juvenile, he would not face severe punishment if caught.
The facts would seem to belie at least part of the court's contention, that young murderers shouldn't be executed because they cannot fully appreciate the possible consequences of their actions. Simmons coldly calculated his odds; that he was wrong about a prosecuting attorney's willingness to try him as an adult doesn't diminish his ability to understand that what he was doing was terribly wrong.
Just three years ago, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 decision, ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute a murderer who is retarded. But the court left it to the states, within reason, to determine what constitutes retardation.
Trumbull County's prosecutor, Dennis Watkins, has been involved in prosecuting one of the area's most brutal murders, and one in which both the issue of age and retardation were a factor. He believes the Supreme Court got both rulings wrong (although the court's ruling on age does not affect the Ohio case, because state law set the age limit for execution at 18 in 1981).
Raymond Fife, 12, was tortured, molested and killed in 1985 by Danny Lee Hill, then 18, and Timothy Combs, then 17. Both were convicted. Hill was sentenced to death; Combs was spared the death penalty because of his age.
Hill is now attempting to argue that he was retarded, and so he, too should be spared execution.
There is ample evidence that he was a calculating murderer in 1985 and has been functioning in his own defense at a level that would defy any definition of retardation.
It is perfectly proper for any state to determine on its own whether vicious murderers such as Simmons, Hill and Combs should be executed.
Losing focus
The Supreme Court, in attempting to find a decision that meets what five justices see as an international norm, has disregarded the legitimate interest of individual communities -- through their prosecutors,, juries and judges -- to determine when a murder is so heinous and the murderer so craven that only the death penalty is appropriate.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has outlawed the death penalty for the retarded, the 17-year-old and for anyone whose crime did not involve the death of his victim. But Watkins points out that Louisiana -- one of the states the permitted the execution of juvenile murderers -- is challenging the oldest of those prohibitions. The state has approved the death penalty for an adult who is convicted of the rape of a child under the age of 10.
Will the court be able to fall back on emerging societal standards when it has to address that issue? If there is an emerging standard for punishment of child rapists, a majority of Americans might favor having the death penalty as an option.
That's the danger when courts use polling to decide what's constitutional. It's a danger that this court should have recognized before it started counting heads at home and abroad to determine how it should rule in capital punishment cases.