ctv_will: Welcome to Court TV Online chats.
I don't know how many of you are seeing this, but apparently some of you are, so let's go.
We're talking about juveniles and the death penalty.
This chat is pretty timely because as a matter of fact, sometime during this very chat, the third juvenile this month will be executed.
Glen McGinnis killed a woman when he was 17, and now Texas is executing him.
But this isn't really about Glen McGinnis.
The larger issue is whether someone can change from the time they're 17 years old.
Our guest tonight is Elizabeth Semel.
She is the director of the ABA Death Penalty Representation Project.
They recently wrote to Gov. Bush in Texas to not kill McGinnis, and we just got word minutes ago that Bush denied the request.
Get your questions in now and we'll be starting in about 10 minutes.
I should point out that the guest and I can only see what you send throught the ASK box,so make sure you type in the right place.

toysoldier_ab asks: eye for an eye
ctv_will: I'm seeing a lot of these types of comments, which is fine, but I wonder something....
If kids aren't allowed to vote or drink or drive, should they be treated as adults by the justice system?
or have sex, or get married, and I'm sure there are a bunch of other things a minor can't do.
One can die in the electric chair though.
Does that bother any of you?
And not just one, but quite a few. Three this month after they kill Glen McGinnis in a few minutes tonight in Texas.

dawnfran asks: who is supposed to be answering questions?
ctv_will: Elizabeth Semel will be answering the questions in just a few minutes.
She is the director of the ABA's death penalty representation project.

the_precious_queen asks: how is this kid being killed?
ctv_will: The juvenile being killed tonight was 17 at the time of his crime, but I think they go as low as 16.

Ok, she's right here.
Welcome Ms. Semel
Elizabeth Semel: Thank you.

SinDee62 asks: I am curious as to whether this is actually being considered. Are we placing before Congress a bill that will make legal the execution of minors?
Elizabeth Semel: There are 38 states and the federal government that have the death penalty.
Of those 38 states, 16 and the federal government require that an individual be 18 or older before he or she can receive the death penalty.
I believe 5 states require the individual to be 17 or older,
and 18 states permit the execution of children age 16 and above.
So it's important to understand that congress has jurisdiction over the federal death penalty. Each of the states if they have the death penalty, is left to decide
how young an individual may be, except that the supreme court held in 1989 that the execution of minors under 16 is forbidden under the constitution.
So in the US, the youngest person who can get the death penalty is 16.

daisypusher23 asks: Why does the US criticize China when our record isn't so good either?
sugarcane14_99 asks: If you are against abortion,you should be against death! USA Are holding people on death row. China execute people right away. Who is more human?
Elizabeth Semel: There is a big question of the death penalty itself, and then there is the smaller question of the death penalty for those who were juveniles at the time of their crime.
It is fair to say that if we speak in terms of international trends, the weight of world opinon favors the abolition of the death penalty or a moratorium on the death penalty.
Countries that still practice the death penalty are now in the minority.
They may be large countries like the US and China, but they are in the minority.
For example, if a nation wants to become an member of the European Union, it must agree to place a moratorium on capital punishiment and work towards its abolition.
Recent examples have been countries of the former USSR such as Russia that have ended the death penalty.
So that's the big question.
With regard to juvenile death penalty, the world is even more emphatically against the execution of juveniles.
Since 1990, 6 countries are known to have executed individuals who are under 18 at the time of their crime.
They are, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the US.
The US is responsible for 13 of those executions.
The other contries all together total 10.
Perhaps a more telling number is that since october of 1997, we know of only two countries that have executed juveniles, Iran and the US.
ctv_will: blushes
Elizabeth Semel: I'd like to add that almost all international treaties now prohibit the execution of individuals who were under 18 at the time of the crime.
They include the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the US remains one of the only countries in the world that has not ratified that convention.
Another one is the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights which also prohibits the execution of juveniles which the US has signed and ratified but declared a "reservation" to the part about juvenile executions,
meaning we agree to everything except that.
The lawfulness of this reservation is being challenged in the US and throughout the world because there are courts that decide questions of international human rights.

edward_sweetguy asks: do you think it is a good idea to use psycology instead of death 89% of the time it works i think
lanerlady_44 asks: The recent court case of a 15 year old, was sent to a juvenile facility... just how good are these facilities?
ctv_will: Do the alternatives work?
Elizabeth Semel: In 1983, the ABA declared its opposition to the execution of people under 18 at the time of the crime.
It did so because it recognized that while juveniles who were convicted of murder must be held accountable, kids are biologically, neurologically, and emotionally, not as developed as adults.
And when it comes to imposing the ultimate penalty of death, the government must take into account those differences.
The supreme court has said that there are two reasons why it permits the death penalty to continue.
They are, retribution for the most horrible crimes, and deterrence.
Although the court has acknowledged that there is no solid evidence that the death penalty deters.
The ABA's position is that there is absolutely no evidence that juveniles are deterred by the death penalty, and that when we talk about retribution,
we must take into account the difference in moral culpability between juveniles and adults.
This position that the ABA has taken is very much related to its view about the increasing trend toward trying younger and younger children as adults and
permitting younger and younger children to be imprisoned with adults.
Fundamentally, the ABA has not abandoned the notion that while punishment is appropriate, rehabilitation is also possible.
Now, having said that, it is important to note that almost every state which has the death penalty, and the federal government, now have an alternative punishment of life without parole.
There are very few states that have what we refer to as straight life where parole is possible after a lot of years.
So it's important to understand that juveniles who are convicted of murder, for which they would otherwise be elegible for death, will none the less be subject to very very very long periods of incarceration
before they are released, if ever.

spazz_styx asks: kids grow up faster so then why doesn't the government recongnize that and deal punishment with that in mind?
ctv_will: Should it not be 18 any more?
Elizabeth Semel: The answer is that the state governments clearly do.
Because they ARE treating kids as adults more often.
We are seeing 14 and 15 year olds routinely tried as adults.
It is ironic, however, that at the same time, state and federal governments continue to recognize that those under 18 are not mature.
We don't allow them to vote, or serve in the military, or enter into contracts.
Or drinking, driving, marriage, a host of other legal responsibilities where the government says
those under 18 are not mature enough to undertake. Both rights and responsibilities.
So there is in a sense, a race to punish juveniles as though they had the maturity of adults, and deprive them of the rights that we afford to people who are 18 years and older.

edward_sweetguy asks: i think rather than execute children let them watch it for them selves to see what could happen to them pretty much what i'm saying is give them a scare.
Elizabeth Semel: There are a number of programs across the country - a good example being something called "scared straight" which are intended to expose kids to
what happens when they get into serious trouble with the law. They are taken to prison and introduced to inmates.
Those prisoners provide them with a very sobering lesson about what they face if they get into trouble- and certainly if they get into MAJOR trouble.
But the question of whether we ought to make executions public is quite a separate issue.
And the short answer is that there are certainly those who argue that if the public were permitted to view executions it would turn many people against the death penalty.
The example in Florida a number of months ago where the electric chair malfunctioned, causing blood to pour from the chest and face of the individual and suffocating him at the same time as he was being electrocuted,
certainly was reprehensible.
And photographs were actually posted on the web site of the FL supreme court by some members of that court who were outraged.
While I believe it is extremely important for Americans to come to terms with the seriousness and the finality of taking away human life, there are also those who express concern that by making executions public, we will ultimately make them
mundane and Americans will become increasingly indifferent.
And while there are those who feel that an individual who has committed a terrible murder deserves no dignity in the moment of his execution,
there are certainly many who would argue that to force an individual to have his execution televised is barbaric.

davina39 asks: if they get out of juvie hall at 21, then kill again, who's fault would that be?
dolcevita3343 asks: it never boils down to a question of death or nothing...please that is a false dichotomy
Elizabeth Semel: It certainly is a false dichotomy.
In the overwhelming majority of states, the sentencer, judge or jury, is given two choices, life without parole or death.
And it is very important to understand that life without parole means exactly that.
In CA, for example, no one who has received that punishment has been paroled. They simply are not eligible.
With respect to releasing individuals at the age of 21, again, the punishment that juveniles who are tried for these kinds of murders receive today are not released at the age of 21.

daisypusher23 asks: Does it ever work to make a last minute appeal for a stay of execution? Like with Carla Fay Tucker?
ctv_will: Being that you made one tonight....
Elizabeth Semel: There are two things that can happen as an execution approaches.
There can be an intervention by a court because the court is concerned that the execution may violate fundamental constitutional rights.
or clemency may be granted by either the governor or in some states the board of pardons and paroles.
there have been examples where courts have intervened at the last minute and spared the life of an individual.
Just last year, Anthony Porter came within 48 hours of execution in Illinois.
When the IL supreme court stayed his execution, it did so based on a claim that he was so severely mentally retarded that he was incompetent to be executed.
What is important about Anthony Porter's case is that ultimately he became the 12th person freed from IL's death row because he was actually innocent.
During the time after the supreme court stayed his execution, lawyers and journalism students developed evidence that the killings had been committed by another man- and actually obtained a confession from the real killer.
ctv_will: That was the work of Prof. David Protess at Northwestern.
Elizabeth Semel: I guess we should say that Governor Bush has been responsible for hundreds of executions and he has granted a stay of execution in only one case.
That was Henry Lee Lucas.
Who's case was found to be factually innocent.

marshall69_2000 asks: so if they are going to be in prison that long why not death
Hasukawa asks: Do you know the cost of an Execution versus the cost of Life Imprisonment?
Elizabeth Semel: The most recent study that I'm aware of was done by the Palm Beach Post, which estimated that the
death penalty costs 51 million dollars a year above the cost of imprisoning everyone who has been convicted of first degree murder in FL.
The newspaper estimated that each of the 44 executions that have occurred in FL since 1976 has cost 24 million dollars.
The reason is that the death penalty- even as badly and unfairly and inequitably as it is in the US, is still more expensive than
imprisoning someone for life.
In FL, for example, about 60% of either death penalty convictions or sentences are reversed by the FL supreme court each year.
It's very important to understand that a court will not overturn a conviction or sentence in a death penalty case unless there has been a fundamental denial of
legal or constitutional rights.
But when there is such a high rate of reversal, then those cases have to be re-tried, which explains part of the cost.
It is very important to understand that although we have more than 3600 people on death row in the US,
prosecutors seek the death penalty many more times than they actually win it.
So that part of the cost of the death penalty includes all the cases where death was sought but either the case was settled for a sentence less than death, or
the judge or jury decided on a punishment less than death.

pecan_7_2001 asks: When is the next juvienile scheduled to die?
Elizabeth Semel: In Texas on the 27th, in two days.
I'm not positive, but I believe that Texas has executed 11 people so far in 2000.
Sorry, that was the US number.
Texas has executed 2 or 3 with one this week happening as we speak.
There was one stayed tomorrow who was a juvenile.
He has not even been through a single federal review of his sentence, so the stay of his execution was predictable.
It is important to understand that when an execution is set, it will not necessarily going to take place on that date.
But prosecutors still try to accelerate the process, even though they know a stay will probably be granted.
Not that that makes the person on death row feel any better.

ctv_will: Ok, thank you very much.
Anything you want to say in closing before we let you go?
Elizabeth Semel: Actually, I'd like to suggest that people take advantage of two wonderful web sites if they are interested in learning more about the death penalty.
The first is the web site of the death penalty information center at www.essential.org/dpic
That provides vital statistics about every aspect of capital punishment from info about which states have the death penalty, to juveniles to international considerations, death row populations and developments in the law.
The other site I would suggest is the web site of the Southern Center for Human Rights
www.schr.org
ctv_will: Hey, we chatted with them last week! We had Stephen Bright as a guest.
Elizabeth Semel: That is an important source of information about the imposition of the death penalty in the south.
You chatted with him? He didn't tell me! He and I are good friends!
ctv_will: I appreciate you taking the time to talk to us about this
Elizabeth Semel: It was my pleasure, really. Thank you.
ctv_will: A lot of you are writing in asking about the specific juvenile being executed in Texas tonight.
He is Glen McGinnis.
He was 17 when he shot and killed a woman robbing a laundromat.
According to the American Bar Association's plea for a stay, he had never
before been charged with any offense involving guns or other weapons.
His previous brushes with the law involved car theft and shoplifting.
He has never owned a gun, and never used one prior to this incident.
His mother was a prostitute and drug addict, and his step father raped and beat him.
He never made it past 7th grade.
That sounds like I'm trying to make him sound sympathetic, but that's the only info I have.
On the other hand, he killed a woman in cold blood, and she had a family and didn't do anything to him.
and...well, he was a criminal.
The issue is that he was 17.

remus_griffin asks: as a member of the ABA shouldn't disclose the truth about what really happened to Tiny Davis in florida's electiric chair, instead of trying to swing people to oppose the death penalty?
ctv_will: She did say that the chair had malfunctioned.
I think when she was talking about that, she was trying to make the point that making executions public might actually backfire on the people who are advocates of the death penalty.
In spite of graphic movies and TV, a lot of people are trouble by the sight of death.

MSBRAB asks: Does anyone in the government care that we sign and ratify treaties, then ignore them?
ctv_will: I wonder that as well.
I guess they don't.
I imagine that when you're America, you don't have to worry about stuff like that.
That seems kind of ignorant to me, but I guess it's also part of how our country works politically.
If the majority of the people support the death penalty, then there's nothing a UN diplomat can do about it.
Especially since those people are never elected, they're just appointees. They don't speak for the American people really.

dolcevita3343 asks: the New Centurians out of philly get people off regularly who are innoscent...isn't that part of the problem with the death penalty..the finality of it?
ctv_will: I think you're right.
Of course, I'm a spineless liberal, but it seems to me that we never could have anticipated DNA evidence before it was invented,
and who knows what else we can't anticipate.
So when you're killing someone who's only 17, those are a lot of years of possibility left over for something useful and important to happen int he future.

kaiser_sose1 asks: Shouldn't people be punished based on the crime and not their agae ???
ctv_will: This is another common sentiment in the question list.
In theory that would be the case, and that is certianly the philosophy behind things like mandatory sentences.
But there is also the factor of circumstance.
As it stands, if a person is retarded, we don't hold them to the same standards.
Or if a person is mentally ill.
or if a person is a kid...under 16.
I'm not sure why the supreme court decided cruel and unusual starts at 16.
Why is everything else based on 18?
Should we change the age? Do you think 16 year olds should be voting?
Fighting in wars?
Signing contracts?
Why not? We can kill them.

juinobugg asks: hey, u r soooo hot, when is your nexy CD coming out?
ctv_will: LOL!!!! I'm guessing you're in the wrong chat!! LOL :D

dolcevita3343 asks: the nations who disapprove can have sanctions against those who violate human rights
ctv_will: Good point,although I guess that's why America doesn't seem to care what others think.
Most other countries need us more than we need them right now.

pinchmesh asks: ...why not hold parents accountable for their offsprings action....until they refuse .... then hold juvenile accountable...
ctv_will: There are lots of people with a similar idea out there now a days.
The parents of the Columbine kids are being sued.
So are the parents of the Paducah KY school shooter.
They're not being criminally prosecuted however, but could that be soon to follow?
I don't have kids, so I don't know if I could speak with total authority, but it seems some parents are dropping the ball.
How far should the punishment for parental irresponsibility go?
Fines? Jail? Death?!?!?
Should the Columbine parents be sterilized so they don't have more kids?

kOrN_802 asks: I think this sholdnt be passed because most of the kids are niglected and why should they be punished for that?
ctv_will: KORN coming to NY area April 1st :)
The point you make is a good one.
But at what point are parents not responsible for raising messed up kids?
That is to say, at what point do kids have to suck it up and deal with how messed up their parents/upbringing made them?
Should everyone have to take a psych test when they're 18 to get licensed as an adult?
To certify that you've reached the age of being able to deal with your own personal crap?
Personally, I kind of like the idea of needing a license to have a kid, but I can see why that would be a bad thing to start.

crazymomof3kids asks: hey i know someone who works for court tv
ctv_will: I do. :)

blueyes71180 asks: I say let them rot in the cell
ctv_will: I like this idea too, although I think it would be even better if they actually did something useful in the cell besides rot.
Especially juveniles, which is sort of what we started talking about.
It may be that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but a 17 year old could be taught to do all kinds of things.
Unless of course, you buy that stuff about genetic predispositions.
Do you believe in reform? Or once a criminal always a criminal?

mrsjean45 asks: CTV, WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO THESE INGORANT PEOPLE?
ctv_will: Let me answer that question this way:
The first question we took tonight was from someone who didn't even realize that people as young as 16 are being legally executed in this country.
There's only one way for ignorant people to stop being that way.
Any discussion at all is better than no discussion at all.
Some others have asked why the media has not made a bigger deal of this.
I don't really know the answer.
I guess it's the darker side of political correctness, no one wants to appear soft on crime.
With regard to your label of "ignorant" I should also point out that there are a lot of really intelligent people here tonight as well.
The question list is full of good points and interesting statements--with just a few idiots.

cool_customer_99 asks: I say we should execute retarded murderers, what do you think?
buffd699 asks: would you feel diferently if a teen killed your loved one?
ctv_will: I know these seem like different questions, but I don't think they are.
They both come down to what is the intelligent and civilized thing to do.
As human beings, we have the ability to act with restraint, and to be fair.
If a teen killed my loved one I would be sad, and probably angry, but I would hope I could get over it and not fly into a murderous and vengeful rage.
Similarly, I understand that you may think it's easiest to deal with a retarded criminal by simply killing him, but in civilized societies we simply don't do that.
I'm not really into religion, but it does blow my mind that this country can be so "Christian" and yet so intolerant and unforgiving.
Makes me a little sick.

god_from_blood asks: Why dont we have Prison inmates make Nike shows?
ctv_will: I assume you mean shoes, and that's sort of what I was talking about except for one thing:
dolcevita3343 asks: perhaps public executions would make people aware of the 8th amendment?
ctv_will: the 8th ammendment.
That's the one that says No cruel and unusual punishment.
Is making sneakers cruel and unusual?
What if we make them run farms??
Why is killing a 15 year old cruel and unusual, but not killing a 16 year old?
Sadly, the Constitution is not a precision tool.

pixy_15_2000 asks: with Bush running for president and wanting to get rid of the chair and all does that count for kids too
ctv_will: Bush wants to get rid of the chair, but not the death penalty.
The chair is very unpopular since the one in Florida malfunctioned and made a mess of some guy in a really gross way.
Now more states are thinking of switching to something more "humane" and you can bet that the reason for that is definitely that it's an election year.
But Bush is definitely not thinking of doing away with the death penalty.
In fact, the ABA, the organization that tonight's guest is from, wrote to W and asked him not to kill Glen McGinnis
who was 17 at the time of his crime.
Bush said no, and McGinnis is probably dead right now, though his body is probably still warm.

gtrivel asks: What is the cruelier punishment locking some in a cell for 23 hours a day with one hour out a day for life or executing them once all appeals have been exhausted
ctv_will: Yes, it would seem to us on the outside that death would be more merciful, but that is not the case as I have heard it from people on death row.
Or, for that matter, from Thoreau.
People on death row can still think and imagine, and in some cases read and write and paint and talk to other people on death row.
From what I understand, they prefer that to death.
And that's why they file all those appeals.
Heck, if death was better, they'd all commit suicide-
I forgot to run the credits for this chat.
Pardon me while I do so for the record, so they're on the transcript....
This chat was brought to you by the good folks at Court TV Online
www.courttv.com
Keep up on CTV chat with the CTV talk page www.courttv.com/talk
and if you have some time, check out our yahoo club clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/theofficialcourttvclub
you might want to bookmark that, it's a pain to type :)
the next CTV chat,as you can see by the graphic above, is the crime and justice news of the week.
Where we talk about whatever you ask about as long as it has something to do with crime and/or justice

pixy_15_2000 asks: with the news showing these horrible crimes happening will kids start to react them?
ctv_will: I think everyone is reacting to them.
Adults are reacting by treating teens more harshly.
I don't know any teens, so I don't know how they're reacting.
It will be interesting to see the Columbine generation grow up.
Will they be good parents? Will they learn anything?
Or will they be paranoid?
Will they be vengeful and intolerant of criminals?
Ok well, I've been online too much today, so I'm outta here.
The room will stay open though, so you guys can stay and hang if you like.
Tomorrow's news chat is at 5pET
Until then, fear simple answers.
This chat has ended, you may go in peace. :)