Rev. Mark H. Creech
Juvenile murderers: they couldn't have known better
By Rev. Mark H. Creech
(AgapePress) — It was September 1997. Kevin Golphin, 17, and his brother Timon, 19, had robbed at gunpoint a finance company worker in Kingstree, South Carolina. They had stolen a car as part of their getaway and were headed north on Interstate 95, when North Carolina Highway Patrolman Ed Lowry pulled the two over for a simple seat belt violation. After calling in the license plate number, Lowry learned the car was stolen and Cumberland County Sheriff's deputy David Hathcock arrived for backup.
As the two officers attempted to arrest Kevin, a struggle ensued and Timon opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle on both Lowry and Hathcock. Both officers lay helplessly on the ground bleeding, when Kevin took Lowry's pistol and at point blank range shot both men to death.
During the trial, The Fayetteville Observer Times reported that Cumberland County District Attorney Ed Grannis held up the blood stained clothing of the slain officers and told jurors: "There's blood on that seal from the Highway Patrol and there's blood on that deputy sheriff's uniform. There's blood on the seal of the state of North Carolina .... If ever a punishment of death is appropriate, this is the time." The jury agreed, sentencing both Golphins to death in May of 1998, a sentence the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld in 2000.
All of that changes, however, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the execution of murderers who committed their crimes while under the age of 18 is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Although Kevin Golphin's murder of two law enforcement officers was exceptionally notorious, sentencing him to death is now considered "cruel and unusual punishment." Golphin is off death row and both Lowry and Hathcock's blood must cry out from the ground!!!
The High Court's ruling affects 70 cases in 19 states, which allow the execution of juveniles. In a 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion, citing a supposed consensus against the juvenile death penalty by state legislatures, the Court's own conclusion the death penalty is disproportionate punishment for minors, and overwhelming international opinion against the practice.
In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia effectively countered each argument for the High Court's decision. Scalia noted the Court's decision to abolish the death penalty for juveniles was "because 18 states — or 47 percent of states that permit capital punishment — now have legislation prohibiting the execution of offenders under 18."
"Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50 percent of death penalty states can constitute a national consensus," said Scalia. With regard to the death penalty being disproportionate for minors, Scalia declared, "Juries 'maintain a link between contemporary community values and the penal system' that this Court cannot claim for itself."
Scalia's most scathing remark, however, was made against the notion that international opinion should play a role in the High Court's decision. "Because I do not believe the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five members of the Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent," said the justice.
No, Tuesday, March 1, 2005, was not a good day for justice. Sally Satel, both a medical doctor and practicing psychiatrist, a lecturer at Yale Medical School, and W.H. Brady Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said on CNN Student News that the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to abolish the death penalty for juveniles was an assault on personal responsibility. In a USA Today article last February, Satel contended: "To be sure, adolescent brains neither look nor function the same as adult brains. Teens can be reckless: they often drive too fast, drink too much, and skateboard down staircases. But premeditated murder? The brains of 6-year-olds are far less developed than teens', but even they fully understand that binding an innocent person and throwing her off of a bridge is wrong."
Satel was specifically referring to Christopher Simmons, whose case, Roper v. Simmons, the High Court considered in making its ruling against the execution of minors. Simmons, who was 17 at the time, decided with some friends it would be "cool" to murder someone. Simmons' idea was to find an individual to burglarize, tie up, and then throw off a bridge. His contention was that he and his friends would get away with the crime because of their ages. In what was clearly a premeditated act, Simmons broke into the home of Shirley Crook, kicked and beat her incessantly, bound her with duct tape and electrical wire, abducted her by way of her own mini-van, and preceded to take her to the Meramec River in St. Louis County, Missouri. Crook pleaded for her life, but Simmons coldly pushed her from a train trestle into the murky waters below. "Bubble, bubble," said Simmons as Crook sank to her death.
Are we to believe for a moment Simmons wasn't responsible for his actions because he was only 17? Nonsense! He knew exactly what he was doing and even acknowledged to a friend that he killed Crook because she had seen his face. Simmons clearly understood he could be sentenced to death if he was caught, but was convinced he would escape such consequences as a minor. Yet, this is the case upon which the U.S. Supreme Court decided juveniles can't be morally culpable enough to deserve the death penalty. It boggles the mind!!!
Moreover, the High Court's decision now sets into place a double standard in legal precedent. Karen England of the Capital Resource Institute summarizes the matter, saying; "We find it perplexing that the laws in our country, on the one hand, recognize the immaturity of young people to commit crimes while, on the other hand, declare that 12-year-old children in California are allegedly 'mature' enough to make decisions regarding obtaining an abortion."
For all those who believe juveniles are never culpable enough to deserve capital punishment, consider this: Not everyone in hell is over the age of 18. God holds individuals responsible according to their abilities at whatever age to discern right and wrong. In our system of justice, juries are best able to discern all the mitigating factors and determine how culpable a minor is — not high-and-mighty black robed dictators who would be, as Justice Scalia put it: "the sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards."
© Rev. Mark H. Creech
(AgapePress) — It was September 1997. Kevin Golphin, 17, and his brother Timon, 19, had robbed at gunpoint a finance company worker in Kingstree, South Carolina. They had stolen a car as part of their getaway and were headed north on Interstate 95, when North Carolina Highway Patrolman Ed Lowry pulled the two over for a simple seat belt violation. After calling in the license plate number, Lowry learned the car was stolen and Cumberland County Sheriff's deputy David Hathcock arrived for backup.
As the two officers attempted to arrest Kevin, a struggle ensued and Timon opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle on both Lowry and Hathcock. Both officers lay helplessly on the ground bleeding, when Kevin took Lowry's pistol and at point blank range shot both men to death.
During the trial, The Fayetteville Observer Times reported that Cumberland County District Attorney Ed Grannis held up the blood stained clothing of the slain officers and told jurors: "There's blood on that seal from the Highway Patrol and there's blood on that deputy sheriff's uniform. There's blood on the seal of the state of North Carolina .... If ever a punishment of death is appropriate, this is the time." The jury agreed, sentencing both Golphins to death in May of 1998, a sentence the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld in 2000.
All of that changes, however, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the execution of murderers who committed their crimes while under the age of 18 is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Although Kevin Golphin's murder of two law enforcement officers was exceptionally notorious, sentencing him to death is now considered "cruel and unusual punishment." Golphin is off death row and both Lowry and Hathcock's blood must cry out from the ground!!!
The High Court's ruling affects 70 cases in 19 states, which allow the execution of juveniles. In a 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion, citing a supposed consensus against the juvenile death penalty by state legislatures, the Court's own conclusion the death penalty is disproportionate punishment for minors, and overwhelming international opinion against the practice.
In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia effectively countered each argument for the High Court's decision. Scalia noted the Court's decision to abolish the death penalty for juveniles was "because 18 states — or 47 percent of states that permit capital punishment — now have legislation prohibiting the execution of offenders under 18."
"Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50 percent of death penalty states can constitute a national consensus," said Scalia. With regard to the death penalty being disproportionate for minors, Scalia declared, "Juries 'maintain a link between contemporary community values and the penal system' that this Court cannot claim for itself."
Scalia's most scathing remark, however, was made against the notion that international opinion should play a role in the High Court's decision. "Because I do not believe the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five members of the Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent," said the justice.
No, Tuesday, March 1, 2005, was not a good day for justice. Sally Satel, both a medical doctor and practicing psychiatrist, a lecturer at Yale Medical School, and W.H. Brady Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said on CNN Student News that the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to abolish the death penalty for juveniles was an assault on personal responsibility. In a USA Today article last February, Satel contended: "To be sure, adolescent brains neither look nor function the same as adult brains. Teens can be reckless: they often drive too fast, drink too much, and skateboard down staircases. But premeditated murder? The brains of 6-year-olds are far less developed than teens', but even they fully understand that binding an innocent person and throwing her off of a bridge is wrong."
Satel was specifically referring to Christopher Simmons, whose case, Roper v. Simmons, the High Court considered in making its ruling against the execution of minors. Simmons, who was 17 at the time, decided with some friends it would be "cool" to murder someone. Simmons' idea was to find an individual to burglarize, tie up, and then throw off a bridge. His contention was that he and his friends would get away with the crime because of their ages. In what was clearly a premeditated act, Simmons broke into the home of Shirley Crook, kicked and beat her incessantly, bound her with duct tape and electrical wire, abducted her by way of her own mini-van, and preceded to take her to the Meramec River in St. Louis County, Missouri. Crook pleaded for her life, but Simmons coldly pushed her from a train trestle into the murky waters below. "Bubble, bubble," said Simmons as Crook sank to her death.
Are we to believe for a moment Simmons wasn't responsible for his actions because he was only 17? Nonsense! He knew exactly what he was doing and even acknowledged to a friend that he killed Crook because she had seen his face. Simmons clearly understood he could be sentenced to death if he was caught, but was convinced he would escape such consequences as a minor. Yet, this is the case upon which the U.S. Supreme Court decided juveniles can't be morally culpable enough to deserve the death penalty. It boggles the mind!!!
Moreover, the High Court's decision now sets into place a double standard in legal precedent. Karen England of the Capital Resource Institute summarizes the matter, saying; "We find it perplexing that the laws in our country, on the one hand, recognize the immaturity of young people to commit crimes while, on the other hand, declare that 12-year-old children in California are allegedly 'mature' enough to make decisions regarding obtaining an abortion."
For all those who believe juveniles are never culpable enough to deserve capital punishment, consider this: Not everyone in hell is over the age of 18. God holds individuals responsible according to their abilities at whatever age to discern right and wrong. In our system of justice, juries are best able to discern all the mitigating factors and determine how culpable a minor is — not high-and-mighty black robed dictators who would be, as Justice Scalia put it: "the sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards."
© Rev. Mark H. Creech
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
