A divided U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday to not hear a case pushing to outlaw the execution of felons who were minors when they committed their crimes. The issue in question is whether a person under the age of 18 has the cognitive capacity to understand the consequences of their actions, according to experts.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, along with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas voted against hearing the case.
Justices David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Byer joined Justice John Stevens in dissent of the court's decision.
\The practice of executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in civilized society,"" Stevens said.
Currently, 22 of the 38 states allowing the death penalty permit the execution of minors.
Court followers said the decision suggests a movement toward abolishing the death penalty for minors. Last year, the court ruled to ban the death penalty for the mentally retarded.
""For some members of the court, [the mental retardation decision] suggests that the next step would be to set an age limit [on the death penalty],"" Ann Althouse said, a law professor at UW-Madison.
In the mental retardation case, the decisions of state legislatures were heavily considered by justices in reaching the final verdict. Whether the same thing will happen regarding minors remains to be seen.
The case presented to the Court for possible review, Stanford v. Parker, entailed a man who abducted, raped and ultimately shot a woman in the face in 1982. The man was 17 years old at the time of the crime, and reportedly bragged of his act before being apprehended.
The reason the court voted against receiving the case was due to the peculiarities of the murder, according to UW-Madison emeritus Professor of law Gordon Baldwin.
""It was a particular ghastly and brutal murder,"" he said. ""The majority [of the court] simply said that whatever the law, this is not the right case to test the retroactivity of the decision.""
The Eighth Amendment, which outlaws cruel and unusual punishment, was cited in the argument against the execution of minors.
Baldwin referred to the country's increasing empathy as a factor in the movement for underage offenders.
""You probably find the majority of the court saying that the evolving standard of decency the Eighth triggers would [eventually] forbid the death penalty for minors,"" Baldwin said, but added, ""The precedents are pretty clearly on the side of executing people who have committed capital crimes within the age of reason.\
