|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 27, 2003 18:03:23 GMT -6
Death sentence for juvenile killer overturned
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that executing people who were minors when they killed was unconstitutional -- almost certainly sending the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 4-3 ruling changed the sentence of Christopher Simmons, 27, of St. Louis from execution to life without parole.
Simmons was 17 in 1993 when he broke into the home of Shirley Crook, kidnapped her, bound her and later pushed her from a bridge into the Meramec River.
Simmons told an accomplice they could get away with it because they were juveniles.
At his trial, a prosecutor argued that Simmons' youth was a good reason to execute him -- that he had too many years left to commit similar crimes.
On Tuesday, the state Supreme Court majority ruled that executing persons who were juveniles at the time of their crimes amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
The court majority extended to minors the same reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court used last year in banning the execution of people with mental disabilities.
But a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling still allows 16- and 17-year-olds to be executed.
Missouri Judge Laura Denvir Stith wrote that "this court concludes that the Supreme Court of the United States would hold that the execution of persons for crimes committed when they were under 18 years of age violates the 'evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.'"
The dissenters said no state court had the legal authority to overturn or to go out ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court.
"It is the prerogative of the United States Supreme Court, and its alone, to overrule one of its decisions," wrote Judge William Ray Price Jr.
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon said he would appeal to the nation's highest court and that it would decide the matter. Missouri law properly allows the execution of 16- and 17-year-old killers, Nixon said, "and that option should remain there for Missouri juries."
University of Missouri-Kansas City adjunct law professor Kent Gipson, a Kansas City defense lawyer not involved in the case, said no other state supreme court had made such a ruling.
It almost forces society to deal with the issue and the case, Gipson said. "It's set up perfectly to go to the United States Supreme Court."
The Missouri court's logic makes sense, Gipson said. In 1989, separate U.S. Supreme Court rulings allowed the execution of people with mental disabilities and of minors of 16 and 17. Last year the nation's high court forbade executing people with mental disabilities, citing "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
In making that decision, the U.S. Supreme Court studied how national and international laws had changed to oppose such executions and how very rarely people with mental disabilities were executed.
On Tuesday, the Missouri Supreme Court also cited the same kind of law changes against the execution of minors, who are also rarely executed.
Missouri has executed only one minor since 1937, the ruling states. Besides Simmons, the state has only one minor killer on death row, Gipson said, and his execution could be overturned for other reasons.
There have been 22 juvenile executions nationwide since 1973, the ruling states, with more than 80 % of them in Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma.
Gipson said the composition of the Missouri Supreme Court made the ruling possible. Democratic governors appointed the four-judge majority in the case: Stith, Richard Teitelman, Ronnie White and Michael Wolff. Republican governors appointed the three dissenters: Price, Duane Benton and Stephen Limbaugh.
Since August 2002, the court has overturned at least 9 death sentences for a variety of reasons.
Reached at her eastern Missouri home Tuesday night, Crook's older sister, Pertie Mitchell, expressed disgust at the court's ruling and said she would push for the state to appeal it.
Simmons, she said, "deserves to be executed. ... And I will feel better when he is executed, and it will happen. ... I'm very bitter, I'm very angry because it has completely torn this family up."
Mitchell said the nature of Crook's murder prevented her from forgiving Simmons. He didn't kill her in a panic, she noted, as about an hour passed from the break-in until Crook was thrown from the bridge.
"This wasn't spur of the moment," she said.
"I haven't been praying about this, because I thought the law would take care of it," she said. Now, she added, "I just pray this man will be executed."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2003 6:56:24 GMT -6
Sorry, bob, but I agree with them on this one. We have laws saying when someone is old enough to know what they're doing when they smoke, drink, and drive a car. Obviously, there are people who are mature enough to handle those things before they reach that age. But they keep the laws in place as a safeguard to those who aren't. There are no exceptions. You can't prove that you know what you're doing, then walk into a convenience store at age 14 and buy cigarettes. And as long as we don't make exceptions to THOSE laws, we shouldn't make exceptions to the rules on adulthood for crimes. It just seems unfair to say that if you prove your maturity as a teenager, you can not get any benefits from it, but you can certainly be punished for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 28, 2003 7:43:04 GMT -6
I would respond with several points:
1. Most states have laws for dealing with older juvenile criminals as adults. Do you object to that practice? The premise is that older juveniles are mature enough to understand right from wrong and the consequences of their actions.
2. The US Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty for persons as young as 16.
3. The Missouri Supreme Court had specifically confirmed the death sentence for this defendant.
4. This defendant was only months from his 18th birthday at the time of the crime.
5. The Supreme Court ruling on mental retardation has nothing to do with the death penalty for juveniles. Mental retardation has to do with diminished mental capacity. Older juveniles cannot automatically be considered mentally handicaped.
6. The Courts have no right to second guess legislatures on an issue like this. The Missouri legislature, supported by a US Supreme Court ruling, has set the age to receive the death penalty at 16.
The long and short of it is that this ruling must be appealed and hopefully the Supreme Court will reverse it. I would also suggest that if there is a means available, recall should be considered for the four justices who wrote the majority decision!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2003 8:19:18 GMT -6
I would respond with several points: 1. Most states have laws for dealing with older juvenile criminals as adults. Do you object to that practice? The premise is that older juveniles are mature enough to understand right from wrong and the consequences of their actions. 2. The US Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty for persons as young as 16. 3. The Missouri Supreme Court had specifically confirmed the death sentence for this defendant. 4. This defendant was only months from his 18th birthday at the time of the crime. 5. The Supreme Court ruling on mental retardation has nothing to do with the death penalty for juveniles. Mental retardation has to do with diminished mental capacity. Older juveniles cannot automatically be considered mentally handicaped. 6. The Courts have no right to second guess legislatures on an issue like this. The Missouri legislature, supported by a US Supreme Court ruling, has set the age to receive the death penalty at 16. The long and short of it is that this ruling must be appealed and hopefully the Supreme Court will reverse it. I would also suggest that if there is a means available, recall should be considered for the four justices who wrote the majority decision! 1. Yes. If they are going to do that, then they also need to make laws where teenagers can prove their maturity and ability to make their own decisions, and be allowed to smoke, drink, etc. Most teenagers know it's a bad idea to smoke, and know it will eventually lead to lung cancer, but many do it anyway. That law exists to make ABSOLUTELY SURE that they can make responsible decisions for themselves. Why are we so sure that a 17-year-old can't smoke, but they can make the decision to do something that will get them executed? I would be willing to accept charging juveniles as adults ONLY if they are treated as adults in other circumstances as well. After all, how can we reasonably ask them to ACT as adults if, in most circumstances, we treat them as children? 2. Okay, so the supreme court is wrong, in my opinion. It's not the first time. 3. Once again, that doesn't make it right. 4. If someone is as much as one DAY from their 21st birthday, they can't buy alcohol. Why the double standard? 5. I agree. Mental retardation has nothing to do with this. They should not be executed because they were still considered children when their crimes were committed. 6. I'm not saying it's not legal. I'm saying it's not right. |
|
|
|
Post by Gea Storey on Sept 2, 2003 4:03:50 GMT -6
TEXT  hi All !! Have you ever met Chris Simmons?? Well I have! he is a good friend of my husbands and i can tell you one thing. I don't care if he is innocent or guilty he doesn't have to die for it.... Chris is now 27 years old and he is a great guy. he had a terrible life and we don't know what happend. Everybody is screaming and yelling to kill the m..ther f...ers but no one even bodered to listen to his side of it all. But i guess there are alway's people in this world who judge without even knowing the sircomstances. I am so sick and tired of people who judge people without even knowing what they are talking about. Manny people ask me But what if it wa you rkid that was killed. My responce to that is: WHAT IF IT WAS YOUR KID ON DEATHROW?  ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gea Storey on Sept 2, 2003 4:09:11 GMT -6
TEXT hi All !! Have you ever met Chris Simmons?? Well I have! he is a good friend of my husbands and i can tell you one thing. I don't care if he is innocent or guilty he doesn't have to die for it.... Chris is now 27 years old and he is a great guy. he had a terrible life and we don't know what happend. Everybody is screaming and yelling to kill the m..ther f...ers but no one even bodered to listen to his side of it all. But i guess there are alway's people in this world who judge without even knowing the sircomstances. I am so sick and tired of people who judge people without even knowing what they are talking about. Manny people ask me But what if it wa you rkid that was killed. My responce to that is: WHAT IF IT WAS YOUR KID ON DEATHROW? ? Think about that for a chance... Don't judge a book by it's cover read it first and then you have a right to judge.... I respect anyones opinion and you are intitled to it. ofcourse. But before you judge people for what they have done get to know them first or atleast there back ground and then rais hell. namste Gaya And to Chris i would like to say! good on you friend tell Tim I love him.
|
|
|
|
Post by GlennF on Sept 2, 2003 10:04:14 GMT -6
"Simmons was 17 in 1993 when he broke into the home of Shirley Crook, kidnapped her, bound her and later pushed her from a bridge into the Meramec River.
Simmons told an accomplice they could get away with it because they were juveniles."
Don't judge a book by it cover - He not only kidnapped and murdered but boasted about getting away with it because he was a "juvenile"! It appears YOU are judging this book by it's cover, amazing what a smile and bit of small talk have done to your brain. If Simmons is your idea of a "great guy" then there is something drastically wrong with you.
I say execute him, it has already taken far too long!
|
|
|
|
Post by gaya on Sept 2, 2003 10:28:31 GMT -6
TEXTTEXTwhere you there? Did you ever talked to the guy? NO you Haven't, have you . Well I did and that they say he bragged about it! Never happend, maybe he is guilty I don't know he never told me he was. But I do know that i hear two sides to a storey and don't believe anything some prosecuter told the press. or whome ever. Where you there when it Happened NO! and neither was i. So now who is judging HU!!!! Get you facts straight and then get back to me..... I met and spoke to Chris and he is a nice guy.... and a good friend of my husband Who happends to also be on deathrow. But I guess all you can do is read allt here is on the web. But the sad part is, they never put anything good on there. NO why should they! theire scum, right!! Well i can tell you one thing you don't recognize a killer because they smell bad or look funny. their just people like you and i are. If he is guilty! well then he should get life without But don't kill them it doesn't solve anything. it only makes matters worse. No offence but you don't know me and i don't know you . the only thing we have incommen is the fact that we are both human. with oppinions and believes. But I do know one thing and that is! that I am trying to understand the human mind good or bad. And I think that there is good in everybody. Even those who did the unthinkable........ Gaya 
|
|
|
|
Post by GlennF on Sept 2, 2003 12:33:20 GMT -6
Miss Gaya, you should be grateful that you wasn't there, otherwise your friend would have been charged with TWO murders.
You also seem to forget that this dropout had a trial, and there they most likely go into a little more detail than what you discussed with him during visiting hours at the prison.
I'm not at all surprised, birds of a feather stick together!
Just out of curiosity, did you meet your husband before or after he was "charged with murder", I'm just assuming it is murder he "was supposed to have committed"? Is your husband also "innocent"?
Oh, but there are enough websites that hero-worship murderers, you're just not look hard enough!
First time you said something normal!
Well, he's not on deathrow because he stinks and looks funny, he there because he murdered someone.
It certainly solves the problem of him possibly committing another murder. Executing murderers is the best option, keeping them alive makes matters worse.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs!
There probably is some good in everyone, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished if they commit one of the worst crimes on the books.
And executing murderers is justice and as a bonus it also saves many more innocent lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by squid on Sept 2, 2003 15:44:11 GMT -6
Hmmmmmm i guess it's possible he did not know it was wrong to kidnap someone. Maybe he thought is was a game when he tied her up. Maybe she just wanted to go for a swim so he pushed her off a bridge.
Give me a break.......
She obviously has a very biased opinion as a result of her experiences with the DP and as such can offer no logical (or coherient) discussion on the subject. If duely tried, convicted, and properly sentenced there is no reason this person should not see the DP.
|
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Sept 2, 2003 20:24:51 GMT -6
;D " A Friend of my husband who is also on Death Row" Damn I am sure he is inocent if another murderer err I mean inocent victim of the judicial system says so. ;D Give me a break nice guy my as* he is a murderer plain and simple and should be executed as soon as possiable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edina MR db on Sept 3, 2003 11:39:08 GMT -6
Would you m ind telling us why your husband was put on death row? thanks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2003 14:25:47 GMT -6
Was Simmons the best man at your jailhouse marriage, Gaya?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2003 11:20:47 GMT -6
i whole heartedly agree with my buddy glenn on this one, if some one is one death row its because they stole the life of someone who was alive, just think about it, a murderer, a killer, by any other name a freak! every single person who intentfully kills another person (save war time) should be put to death. i am no vigalanty but i dont care if they can buy smokes, beer, or drive, if a kid knows right from wrong, and kills purposelly, he in turn should be executed.
call me crazey, but doesnt it make sense, it costs some where around $100,000 a year to house a prisoner (for life @ $100,000 a year, you do the math) it makes sense to kill a killer.
"eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth," nothing more, just so the debt is paid.
|
|
hi All !!
?
