Alabama Set To Execute Man for a Crime He Committed While Legally a Minor
"Alabama law sets the age of majority at 19 years old, not 18 years. An 18-year-old is thus a minor," say Casey McWhorter's lawyers.

Just three months after his 18th birthday, Casey McWhorter shot and killed Edward Lee Williams, his friend's father, in a planned robbery and murder. Now, over 30 years after the crime, Alabama plans to execute him.
"I was a very confused kid," McWhorter, now 49, told the Associated Press in an interview reported this week. "I had some issues going on in my head that I didn't know how to fix, and the only way I knew to feel acceptance was doing some of the stupid stuff I was doing with the people I was doing it with. I felt like they were family at that point."
McWhorter's young age at the time of the murder—just a few months shy of the legal minimum for capital sentencing—has caused controversy over his impending execution, set for a 30-hour period starting Thursday night. Making the case even murkier, Alabama is one of just two states where the legal age of maturity is 19, not 18, meaning that McWhorter was technically a minor when he killed Williams.
For this reason, McWhorter's lawyers asked the Supreme Court twice in the last two weeks to place a stay on his execution and to review the case.
"Alabama law sets the age of majority at 19 years old, not 18 years. An 18-year-old is thus a minor," McWhorter's lawyers wrote to the Supreme Court. They add, "18-year-olds cannot serve on state juries because of their legal status. They can, however, be sentenced to death for a capital offense, even though Alabama law otherwise treats them as juveniles."
"There is emerging research showing that there is nothing magic about turning 18 when it comes to brain science—18 year olds continue to develop and mature," they wrote.
The Supreme Court denied McWhorter's request for a stay on Thursday afternoon.
McWhorter was sentenced to death in 1994 for Williams' murder. According to court documents, McWhorter had planned the murder ahead of time, conspiring with two younger teenagers, including Williams' 15-year-old son, to rob Williams' home before killing him. Ultimately, Williams was shot nearly a dozen times by the three teenagers.
While the other teenagers who participated in the murder, both under 18, were sentenced to life in prison for the crime, McWhorter was sentenced to death by a 10–2 jury vote. Notably, Alabama is one of just three states that do not require a unanimous jury for a death sentence.
McWhorter's execution will be the second in Alabama following a four-month-long moratorium on executions in the state. The pause came after a series of high-profile botched and failed executions shed scrutiny on the state's execution procedures. However, while the state insists that it has improved its process for killing death-row inmates, the extent of actual reforms remains opaque.
The most notable, and troubling, change to the state's execution process is that the state has shifted from a single execution date to set a "time frame" of several days. This shift comes after the state had to stop several executions because prison officials were unable to successfully insert an IV line into an inmate sentenced to die by lethal injection before midnight—with attempts leading to gruesome physical injuries for inmates.
Leading up to his execution, McWhorter told the A.P. that he would encourage other young people to avoid making one life-destroying choice as he did. "Anything that comes across them that just doesn't sit well at first, take a few seconds to think that through," he said. "Because one bad choice, one stupid mistake, one dumb decision can alter your life—and those that you care about—forever."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
He won’t be missed.
If only it were a drone strike on eight kids and an aid worker, he’d be fine.
I hate the death penalty. Governments should not be able to legally kill their citizens, who after all are supposed to be their bosses.
But criminy, making a federal case out of this cool cat, who planned a cold-blooded murder when he was 18, involve true minors?
I find it hard to believe this is who I'm supposed to feel sorry for.
Then don't feel sorry for him. Being opposed to the death penalty doesn't require one to feel sorry for the criminal.
I hate the death penalty. Governments should not be able to legally kill their citizens, who after all are supposed to be their bosses.
I don't mean to make this about hanging Anthony Fauci but it would totally be cool if the government legally killed Anthony Fauci, right?
Feel free to call me out for falsely not wanting to make this about Anthony Fauci because, seems to me, we could be doing a little more talking about Capital Punishment for people like Anthony Fauci than quibbling over 18 vs. 19 for the age of majority in AL in the case of [scrolls up] Casey McWhorter.
The difference between this guy and Fauci, is that Fauci killed and impoverished millions instead of just one guy.
But yeah, the government should never have the power to kill anyone. Even Fauci.
Couldn’t they at least lock Fauci in a cage filled with vengeful beagles?
Nothing to do with Fauci not having been convicted of first degree murder or any silly details like that?
Governments should have the power to kill, with self defense, defense of others, in a just war and with executions, all against unjust aggressors, in those circumstances, when protecting innocent lives.
As I have often said, I'd have a lot less problem with the death penalty if it were reserved for agents of the state who abuse their positions to harm others.
I hate the death penalty. Governments should not be able to legally kill their citizens, who after all are supposed to be their bosses.
That's a poor justification for being against the death penalty. If you believed that, then there would be no armed police force.
I don't mean to boaf sidez the issue but the would-be Patrick Wood Crusius v. would-be Nicholas Cruz general election is objectively worse than either/any Trump v. Biden general election.
Different, because reasons.
Yeah, you're probably the kind of quibbler who denies "Thou shalt not kill" was originally "Thou shalt not murder".
Fuck off, idiot.
The Old Testament isn't exactly in opposition to the death penalty, though, so you can't really take the commandment as literal and absolute. I don't think anyone thinks it means you must not kill even in self defense, for example.
I don't think it makes a lot of sense to claim that "we" are supposed to be the government's bosses either. "We" disagree immensely on what the government should actually do. A collective that disagrees about everything can't really be a boss of anything. Representative democracy isn't people ruling themselves. It's just people having an opportunity to interfere with those who would rule them to some extent.
Hell,there would be no policing at all. You could make the same flacid argument for imprisoning or even fining your "bosses" if your applying it at the individual level.
Governments should not be able to legally kill their citizens,
Governments don't.
Trials and the death penalty make it possible for the citizens to legally eliminate a threat in their midst
Juries render the verdict, not elected officials.
Saddest thing is that this piece of shit got 30 years of life more than his victim.
When the victim died they became an abstraction, while the murderer became a victim of society.
What was McWhorter going to become? Working at McDonald’s selling McNuggets? Instead of McDonald's fries, it looks like Alabama fries is on the menu.
Old Sparky flamed out.
Minnesota police have a few openings. /sarc
Before the usual suspects show up:
The reason not to execute McWhorter isn't because he "was a very confused kid". The reason not to execute McWhorter isn't because he doesn't deserve death on some karmic or emotional level.
The reason not to execute McWhorter is because the state should not have the legal power to execute anyone as a form of punishment for a crime.
(Oh but I can hear it now: BUT WHAT ABOUT ASHLI BABBITT? HUH??? She was not killed as a punishment for a crime. She was killed in self-defense and in the defense of others that the officer was protecting.)
Also, the reason not to execute McWhorter is, in this case, there was doubt on the jury whether he should be executed, as the vote was not unanimous.
If the state doesn't execute murderers, then eventually people will. And vigilante justice is worse
I don't mind vigilante justice, let the victim or their family strike back, but I really fear state power.
I don’t mind vigilante justice
Legal vigilante justice? If vigilante justice is legal, then what's the point of having a criminal justice system?
Splitting hairs much?
The cops inflict the death penalty every damn day.
Vigilantism is not equal to lynching.
What's the difference?
Lynching is prejudicial, vigilantism can involve patience. As would be the case in the state refusing the DP.
So the lynch mob is irrationally prejudicial, but the vigilante mob is rational and patient? Really?
So in Nobartium's version of Libertopia, if a trial ends with an acquittal but the
lynchvigilante mob disagreed with the verdict, they would not take matters into their own hands? Why wouldn't they?Stop pretending you don’t won’t to murder people you don’t like, shithead.
Because vigilantes are currently outcast soon after the act.
Loosen that, as ML suggested, and that would change.
This is utopian, and ignores how lynch mobs came to be in the first place.
That would be headline noose.
Knot!
So, if it's put to a popular vote and 100% of the populace grants some citizen a vigilante hall pass to murder whatever homicidal portmanteau of serial killers and dictators you want to imagine, is that kosher or is it a no go because everybody voted and that constitutes a democracy/form of government?
Can governments still murder people from other countries in defense of their own citizens? Even preemptively or do they have to wait for citizens to actually die first?
Oddly enough Jeff thinks democracy can kill children in the womb easy peasy. Just not murderers.
Not oddly at all, Jesse has yet again mischaracterized my position.
As I stated below, all human beings have an inalienable right to life. Can you tell me, with 100% certainty, when inalienable rights first emerge in an unborn child? I cannot. So, in the very early stages of human development, when it is unclear whether or not the developing embryo has inalienable rights, I am going to defer to the party that I am absolutely certain *does* have inalienable rights, and that is the mother. As the development of that human life progresses, and it becomes more clear that that life does possess the full panoply of rights, then they ought to be protected just as vigorously as the rights of any born individual.
Clear enough for you?
Oh wait, it's never clear enough for you. I predict in a few days you are going to misrepresent my position yet again. This is mainly for the benefit of everyone else reading.
..becomes more clear that that life does possess the full panoply of rights,
When is that? Is it all of a sudden, or is it a gradual process?
Can you tell me, with 100% certainty, when inalienable rights first emerge in an unborn child?
Yes.
Everyone can. Everyone knows. With 100% certainty.
At conception.
This is a fact--at conception the individual DNA that forms at that second is the same individual DNA that will exist until that person dies.
There may be periods within that span where the owner of that DNA cannot speak. There may be periods where that person cannot take care of themself. But none of that removes their inalienable right to life.
Since you can't find a point at which a person acquires that right, logically this can only mean that it was ALWAYS there.
Just like every other inborn right.
Nobody knows that. It is purely axiomatic. It's the assumption you base your arguments on, not a conclusion.
I know that it’s wrong.
First, the DNA at birth is not the same DNA at death, even not being nitpicky shitposter about the turnover of atoms; telomeres shorten, mutations creep in, actively uncoiled portions at birth refold and run dormant…
Second, derivative from above, “near death DNA” and “post mortem DNA”, a.k.a. “no longer a person with rights DNA”, are definitively more closely correlated than “birth DNA” and “death DNA”.
The DNA that, for legal purposes, is unique and conserved, birth to death, is a tiny fraction of both the overall abstraction and the construct produced from all the various copies of the abstraction.
Which, again I say, we can determine death down potentially below the threshold at which human consciousness can perceive it using EEGs and cardiograms and the long understood and not foreseeably reversible standard among higher organisms is: “Heartbeat and brainwaves: alive, No brainwaves or heartbeat: dead.” DNA only determines the degree to which the organism is considered human.
Who are the "usual suspects", Jeffy?
The people who come here every single time there is an article about the death penalty and advocate for it.
Oh but wait, this is a case when you tried to entrap me in a gotcha moment because you thought I would say "why, people like you, ML!" and then you would respond "but you are so stupid, I oppose the death penalty like you!"
Incidentally, does this statement make me more like a Nazi or less like a Nazi?
"the state should not have the legal power to execute anyone as a form of punishment for a crime"
First of all; who the fuck are you to say what the government can, or can't do to a murderer?
The death penalty is something that has gone through the legitimate legal process, and enjoys a large proportion of support by the citizens.
Second of all; Ashli Babbitt wasn't killed in self defense, or the defense of others. She was murdered in cold blood, by a trigger-happy coward, of an incompetent Capitol security guard.
In a fair world, Michael Byrd would be in line for the death penalty.
This is very odd as Heffer has supported capital punishment for trespassing. He keeps trying to rationalize it. But he literally equated trespassing to capital punishment. It was very clear.
But he literally equated trespassing to capital punishment.
No, YOU equated my comments regarding Ashli Babbitt with capital punishment.
If a person invades your home, you have the right to use lethal force if necessary to stop that invader. That is an act of self defense, and/or the defense of others in the home. That lethal force is not equivalent to a death sentence by a court of law. You were the one who equated the two because you're a dishonest hack.
Once again. Your full fucking comment.
chemjeff radical individualist 3 years ago What is there to talk about? . From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser. That would not have been wise or prudent, of course. . They were all trespassers trying to be where they weren’t supposed to be.
Justified. To. Shoot. Trespassers. Full stop.
No law on the planet allows cops to shoot unarmed people for trespassing. None. Yet you justify it.
D.C. is not a stand your ground state.
District of Columbia Law Washington D. C. does not have a stand your ground law. The District’s case law allows juries to consider a failure to retreat when evaluating the necessity of a person’s use of force.
You fail on every level.
You have no principles aside from the principle of pushing the lefts narratives.
What a disgusting pile of shit that tried to justify shooting an unarmed protester as a libertarian perspective.
She was mostly peaceful, too!
Do you understand what the phrase "from a libertarian perspective" means? It means that I'm discussing the libertarian principle of the matter, and not the details of any specific law. So you bringing up the details of any specific law is irrelevant in this way.
Do you object to the potential use of lethal force by the homeowner in the case of a home invasion? Yes or no?
Was the cop acting in the capacity of a security guard? Yes. Was he acting in the capacity of an officer executing an order from a court of law of capital punishment? No.
Murray N. Rothbard, the godfather of libertarianism
" . . .the murderer loses precisely the right of which he has deprived another human being: the right to have one's life preserved from the violence of another person. The murderer therefore deserves to be killed in return."
" . . . the instincts of the public are correct on this issue: namely, that the punishment should fit the crime; i.e., that punishment should be proportional to the crime involved. The theoretical justification for this is that an aggressor loses his rights to the extent that he has violated the rights of another human being." (4)
originally appeared as "The Plumb Line: The Capital Punishment Question" in the Libertarian Review, Vol. 7, No. 5 (June 1978), pp. 13–14.
I’m thinking if I shot an unarmed woman in the back, who was trespassing, I’d be “dating” a guy named Bubba right now.
If she were at the head of a mob, and broke through a window and was facing you rather than having her back to you - IOW, all the things that St. Ashli was actually doing - and you were nearby and tasked with defending not just yourself but others, that is a somewhat different case from what you're implying.
You really are a cowardly state worshipping piece of shit.
Don't like having your lies exposed, I see
And shrike enters the chat. Could the cops have started shooting the mob last night? BLM riots?
You dumb leftists were screaming bloody murder over unmarked vans and names not being on shields. Lol.
Who was that cop defending? There were 3 fucking armed cops on the hallway with Babbitt. Non of them felt threatened. Their guns were down.
https://reason.com/2023/11/07/10000-dead/?comments=true#comment-10307482
The NAP doesn’t require a proportional response.
Care to explain this comment, Jesse? So, based on this comment, why couldn't the police have started shooting all the DNC protestors, or the BLM protestors? Hmm?
Still not shrike, you lying POS. And nor am I a leftist except by definition of you Trumpsuckers.
If St. Ashli had been black and it had been a black mob trying to invade the Capitol to stop some GOP legislation, you'd have praised the cop and said of her, she fucked around and found out.
Hell, we all know that had there been a black mob, there'd be bodies piled up on the steps - and people like you would have applauded it.
First of all; who the fuck are you to say what the government can, or can’t do to a murderer?
A citizen, just like you (presumably).
The death penalty is something that has gone through the legitimate legal process, and enjoys a large proportion of support by the citizens.
Oh I know, I'm not claiming the death penalty is illegal or unpopular. I'm claiming it's wrong.
Second of all; Ashli Babbitt wasn’t killed in self defense, or the defense of others. She was murdered in cold blood, by a trigger-happy coward, of an incompetent Capitol security guard.
In a fair world, Michael Byrd would be in line for the death penalty.
Ashli Babbitt was shot while attempting to climb through a shattered window that was adjacent to a locked and barricaded door leading to the Speaker's chambers where there were still House personnel present. She ignored direct commands to stop and the officer was in her full view along with his drawn gun.
The situation was very much like a home invasion. If a person invades your home, you have the right to use lethal force if necessary to stop that person.
So in this case it’s ok for the state to kill a citizen.
Should I bother looking up Jeff's take on Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc?
That may be amusing. What’s the over/under on the “I was hacked” defense?
As I wrote above:
"the state should not have the legal power to execute anyone as a form of punishment for a crime."
I get it, you want to kill your political enemies. Have fun with how that turns out for you.
he deserves it more than chauvin
On what moral grounds? = The reason not to execute McWhorter is because the state should not have the legal power to execute anyone as a form of punishment for a crime.
Why should a murderer live? What's the moral argument?
The same reason any of us should live - it is our inalienable right. You have the burden of proof inverted. Neither he nor anyone else has to justify his existence. It is the state that has to justify taking his life.
Uh...no. A society may decide to end the life of a murderer, as a penalty. Societies determine the rules they live under.
And why is it moral to compel the state to support a murderer?
Umm, yes. If you think citizens should have to justify their existence to the state, then that is a very dangerous path to go down.
A society may decide to end the life of a murderer, as a penalty. Societies determine the rules they live under.
Okay then - in Saudi Arabia, the 'crime' of blasphemy is punishable by death. Totes legit? Normally, we here in the West would say that this is a violation of the human rights of the accused - it violates freedom of conscience to punish blasphemy at all, let alone with such an extreme punishment. But, according to you, society may choose whatever rules it deems fit, and if it chooses to punish blasphemy with death, then those are the rules and no one else has any license to complain.
Which comes first - society's rules, or the individual's rights?
And why is it moral to compel the state to support a murderer?
The society of Saudi Arabia would say the same thing - why is it moral to compel the state to support a blasphemer?
Societies determine the rules they live under. That doesn't mean they are moral. Hamas wants their society to live under rules that include "kill all the Jews".
Why is it moral to compel the state to support any criminal? Wouldn't that same argument support the death penalty for any crime that might otherwise make someone a ward of the state?
Jeff. You bring up Babbitt. Last night protestors assaulted police and blocked exits at the DNC. Why were none of then shot? They ignored lawful orders. They assaulted officers. They knocked over fences. They used weapons. Please show us your rationalization why leftist protests are protected but Babbitt is not.
Who said they were?
Why don't you tell us, Jesse?
https://reason.com/2023/11/07/10000-dead/?comments=true#comment-10307482
The NAP doesn’t require a proportional response.
So according to you, the police would have been justified in shooting both Ashli Babbitt and the left-wing DNC protesters. Right?
The reason not to execute McWhorter is because the state should not have the legal power to execute anyone as a form of punishment for a crime.
True enough. The traditional libertarian punishment is simply to withdraw all legal protections, meaning anybody other than the state can enslave or kill him.
Umm, what? I am not sure where you got your twisted version of libertarianism. I think you have it confused with the movie The Purge or something.
No, I just know my history. Outlawry existed in the UK and Australia until the late 19th century, and in the US well into the 20th century. It also was widespread in continental Europe. Outlawry effectively declares the person legally dead.
Traditionally, outlawry is imposed by courts. In a libertarian society, security and conflict resolution are private, and the providers will simply refuse to provide these services for you if you have grossly violated their terms of service or have become too much of a risk.
You can't expect society to protect your rights if you grossly and deliberately violate the rights of others in that society.
What you describe is closer to anarchism. In my view you simply cannot have robust protection of liberty when matters of crime and punishment are decided by the private sector. Because, ultimately, one's protection is decided by (1) ability to pay, or (2) a combination of market pressure and social pressure. If you believe that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights, then that means that no one can lawfully take those away - not the state, not another person, no one. And foremost among these has got to be the right to life. Outlawry denies that there are rights that are inalienable. In your version of things, it would seem, the only liberties that would be protected are the ones that are cost-effective to protect and/or the ones that are socially acceptable to protect.
You can’t expect society to protect your rights if you grossly and deliberately violate the rights of others in that society.
I cannot expect a riled-up mob governed by passions and emotions to protect everyone's rights even those of murderers. I can expect a government to do so, which has as its mission statement the protection of liberty.
Outlawry denies that there are rights that are inalienable.
Your rights become alienable if you have been convicted of a serious crime; that’s always been the case in the US. That’s why the government can lock up criminals and execute criminals.
I cannot expect a riled-up mob governed by passions and emotions to protect everyone’s rights even those of murderers.
Well, lucky then that outlawry is, and has always been, imposed by courts, just like any other criminal punishment.
Because, ultimately, one’s protection is decided by (1) ability to pay, or (2) a combination of market pressure and social pressure.
That’s the way the US already operates. Even law abiding citizens have no rights to police protection or criminal prosecution of people who harm them.
In your version of things
I simply offered outlawry as an alternative to the death penalty within our current system. Personally, I’d prefer being an outlaw to being executed. But, hey, if you prefer the state killing people, that’s fine with me too.
I simply additionally explained to you what libertarians mean when they reject the death penalty. You can ignore that part, since you are not a libertarian.
Your rights become alienable if you have been convicted of a serious crime; that’s always been the case in the US. That’s why the government can lock up criminals and execute criminals.
Umm, no. Convicted criminals lose *some* rights, but they don't lose all of their rights.
Well, lucky then that outlawry is, and has always been, imposed by courts, just like any other criminal punishment.
But in your version of things, would outlawry be decided upon by courts? My understanding is that your version of outlawry would be that private firms would withdraw their protection from individuals, and those individuals would become de facto outlaws because they would not have any enforceable contract for protection. So perhaps you could elaborate a few more details on how you would imagine your version of outlawry would work.
That’s the way the US already operates. Even law abiding citizens have no rights to police protection or criminal prosecution of people who harm them.
Well, here you have switched the subject from the perpetrator to the victim. No, victims do not necessarily have a right to see the perpetrators prosecuted criminally, that is true. But once the perpetrator is prosecuted in court, that person is guaranteed some fundamental rights, even without the ability to pay, even if those rights are unpopular to enforce. It seems to me that would not be the case with outlawry.
Besides, referring to the status quo as normative is a fallacy in and of itself.
I simply additionally explained to you what libertarians mean when they reject the death penalty.
That is one libertarian view, not the only one.
Here is a discussion arguing against the Rothbardian view of capital punishment from a libertarian perspective:
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-against-death-penalty
I think life in prison without possibility of parole is sufficient for the most heinous of crimes. One can object to granting the state the legal power to execute criminals while at the same time have honest disagreements about alternatives to that.
Umm, no. Convicted criminals lose *some* rights, but they don’t lose all of their rights.
When they are executed, by definition, they lose all their rights.
But once the perpetrator is prosecuted in court, that person is guaranteed some fundamental rights,
Nobody in our society has a “fundamental right” to be protected from crime, or to have the legal system prosecute perpetrator, not even law abiding citizens. Therefore, your idea that our Constitution prohibits outlawry is wrong.
Well, here you have switched the subject from the perpetrator to the victim.
No, I have simply pointed out that the “rights” you believe criminals enjoy aren’t even enjoyed by non-criminals in our current system. Why should convicted criminals enjoy more rights than law abiding citizens?
But in your version of things, would outlawry be decided upon by courts? My understanding is that your version of outlawry would be that private firms would withdraw their protection from individuals,
Which part of “I simply offered outlawry as an alternative to the death penalty within our current system.” was too hard for you to understand? Of course, within our system, it would be imposed by the courts, like all other punishments.
I simply explained that outlawry also happens to be the natural libertarian alternative to the death penalty.
That is one libertarian view, not the only one. […] I think life in prison without possibility of parole is sufficient for the most heinous of crimes.
And in a libertarian society, who is going to pay for the prison, the guards, and the food?
Here is a discussion arguing against the Rothbardian view of capital punishment from a libertarian perspective:
Well, and I agree with the Cato institute that the state shouldn’t execute people. Nothing in that article argues against outlawry.
And neither you nor the Cato institute explain why law abiding citizens should be coerced by the state to pay for the housing, food, medical needs, and security of murderers.
Outlawry addresses that problem neatly: it doesn't prohibit prison, it simply makes it voluntary on everybody's part: charities can create spaces where convicted outlaws can live safely, and convicted outlaws can choose to live there.
It's a neat and clean libertarian solution, with millennia of precedent across the globe, including common law. And I don't know of any other solution to serious crime that's compatible with libertarianism, but you're welcome to propose something. Prison is not it.
Fine, no state executions.
Then how about incarceration under conditions that would make most prisoners wish for death?
Why is it important to you that the prisoner endure suffering?
Because he slaughtered someone in cold blood.
He, on his own, decided that he, on his own, had the right to take life.
WE decided that if you take life without justification, you must pay with life.
If you will not allow execution, than perpetual suffering is an acceptable compromise.
"We" did no such thing. Amazing how many people go all collectivist on this topic.
Why are we writing about this, and not e.g. hearing about McWhorter’s execution that took place in 1995, and mentioned on an episode about him on ‘American Justice’ that first aired in 1997?
'.....The prosecutor may, before a hearing on the petition on its merits and following consultation with probation services, file a motion requesting the court to transfer the child for criminal prosecution, if the child was 14 or more years of age at the time of the conduct charged and is alleged to have committed an act which would constitute a crime if committed by an adult....'
Yes, the article seemed oddly unconcerned with the legal reasons why his execution has not been stayed. He wasn't "technically a minor", he was legally a minor--and (as far as I can tell) legally sentenced to death.
The only reason ever not to execute a murdered is if there is a question of innocence. There isn't in this case
Leading up to his execution, McWhorter told the A.P. that he would encourage other young people to avoid making one life-destroying choice as he did. "Anything that comes across them that just doesn't sit well at first, take a few seconds to think that through," he said. "Because one bad choice, one stupid mistake, one dumb decision can alter your life—and those that you care about—forever."
Yup. Zero problems making that his last, best act in this world.
I'm pretty sure he altered someone else's life, and those who cared about him, forever.
Imagine commenting on a libertarian website that the State should have the right to murder its citizens.
True enough. The state should not have the power to murder its citizens, it should simply have the power to withdraw all legal protections from a citizen if found in grave violation of US law. That means that the state can't kill those guilty of murder but anybody else can (or enslave them or whatever). That's the libertarian solution. It usually amounts to the same thing, though.
Imagine commenting on a libertarian website while being such an utter idiot that you can't tell the difference between the initiating of force and the retaliatory use of force.
A "Murder" is an unjustified killing. You need more than just a bare assertion to argue that executing a convicted murderer is unjustified.
I think a better definition is "an illegal (and intentional) killing" (even if it's a bit circular, because laws are often like that). I'm not convinced that the law appropriately and accurately defines which killings are justified or not.
"OMG, OMG, he was 18 3/4 when he planned and committed a cold-blooded murder, not 19!!!"
Sorry, I'm hoarding my fucks at the moment and cannot give any for this case. Best of luck getting someone else to give a fuck or two.
As with much of Reason and especially Emma's work on the topic, I completely understand the feeling that your fucks would be better invested somewhere else.
That's what someone needs to manage for crypto. Fucks staking. I could definitely use a higher APY on those than my barren fucks bearing fields are managing these days, especially about trash like this.
no state should have the power to execute.
>>The Supreme Court denied McWhorter's request for a stay on Thursday afternoon.
dafuq else those losers have going on? silence!
no state should have the power to execute
Indeed. States should just have the power to withdraw all legal protections for those found guilty of murder or other grave crimes. It's just as deadly, but the state isn't technically killing anybody.
Presumably you don't mean the state should just release them from prison?
So, in effect, anyone who could afford to pay for a jailhouse shanking/protection from jailhouse shanking would get to decide if the murderer lives or dies.
Presumably you don’t mean the state should just release them from prison?
Sure, far away from civilization. Somewhere in the Alaskan wilderness or some uninhabited island somewhere. No money, no transportation, nothing.
First, they came for the savage murderers. And I'm OK with that.
This "technically" argument makes a mockery of the rule of law. Minor, for purposes of eligibility for DP, means 18.
I get opposition to the death penalty--what I don't get is the vehemence.
They are pro criminal and anti consequence. They, Emma included, hate Western society and are actively working to destroy it.
Consequences are racist, or something.
Yeesh. This is Alabama. Since few can even count to 19, age stuff is purely a technicality.
Aren’t you overdue for your next booster?
The irony that jfree continues to fall for covid lies and defends that shit yet those who he says can't count to 19 did not.
According to neuroscientists and other experts, the human brain isn’t fully developed until at least age 25-30, so let’s not execute anyone who committed a crime before they were 25, or let them vote for that matter.
See, that's the flip side I'm always bringing up and nobody wants to listen to.
"They were just out of high school when they took those student loans!"
"OK, well, I'm fine with not granting people the ability to make contracts until they're 25, but they don't get to vote either."
"No, people should be able to vote at 14! They're the future, man!"
Or own guns...
I remember being a confused 18 year old. Never considered that killing someone would solve my confusion problem.
There are two separate issues.
1. Does he deserve to be executed? I think it's unclear, though people may honestly disagree. If he is really not the same person he was 30 years ago, then I'm not sure he does deserve it. If he is and is just managing it better, then probably.
2. Does the state have the right to execute him? Again, unclear. As rights are an invention, one may pick and choose rights according to one's tastes. For my taste, the state has the relevant right to execute only when there is no alternative. In this case, there clearly is.
But any of the 4 combinations is arguable and there's no objective determination for any of them.
My main objection to the DP is the expense, which arguably could be reduced if it didn't normally take 30 years to litigate each one...
Y'know, when the guy's been in prison for three decades - his entire adult life - and the option remains to just leave him there for the rest of his days... exactly what satisfaction will the death penalty bring anyone at this point?
Some folks may have him on their death pool.
Why should "satisfaction" be the goal of any death penalty case?
I’m guessing you have been fortunate enough to not have lost a loved one to murder.
It has to do with a sense of justice and decency; you wouldn't understand.
Is this some "universal sense" you imagine exists? Family members of victims sometimes object to the capital punishment of the perpetrators.
You don't think those family members have any "sense of justice and decency"?
It is nearly universal.
Some men also cut off their own dicks.
Well, I don't know the family dynamics. Perhaps they didn't care for the victim. Or perhaps they desire the killer to be dead but override that desire because they believe they ought not to act on that desire.
Good for Alabama.
Leaving aside the arguments about the death penalty in general, I'm against McWhorter's execution because the government should not be allowed to play waffle-games about whether someone is a minor or an adult. The government shouldn't be able to get away with "You're a minor when it's conveeeenient for us to treat you as a minor, and an adult when it's conveeenient for us to treat you as an adult."
For better or worse, the State of Alabama chose to make 19 the age of majority. Even if McWhorter deserves to be executed for his crime, the State of Alabama deserves even more to be made to stick with its choice of classing McWhorter as a minor and so be prevented from executing him.
The article doesn't discuss why the state of Alabama shouldn't execute "minors", instead it focuses on two facts: (a) he was a minor, and (b) he is being executed.
I'm therefore assuming that it is perfectly legal under Alabama law for the state to execute minors.
Why shouldn't Alabama be allowed to execute minors?
The Founding-era standard (going back for centuries earlier in the common law) was that persons from ages 14 to 20 were presumed (subject to rebuttal) to be criminally responsible for their felonies, and that all felonies were punishable by death, even though the age of majority was 21. Executing minors for felonies is entirely consistent with the Constitution and the Anglo-American tradition of the common law.
The Supreme Court, in a move that had nothing to do with the text or history of the Constitution, arbitrarily declared that the execution of people for crimes other than murder was unconstitutional, and then arbitrarily declared that the execution of those under the age of 18 was unconstitutional. But this guy is on the "you can execute" side of both those lines whether or not he's a minor.
I love how the Liberals play the age card when it suits their agenda. You can decide your gender in Elementary School. You can decide to have an abortion in Junior High, but, HE can't get Capital Punishment because he was 18 instead of 19.
Notice he's not disputing his guilt or innocents for the murder.
As one poster already said "He won't be missed."
You forgot the boner liberals get when pushing for lower voting ages, along with legal and financial forgiveness for anyone under 30.
I think the age of majority should be the same for voting, drinking, marrying, criminal punishment, owning guns, lopping off body parts, etc.
Do you?
I have to think even you could come up with a better argument than, "He was only 18 3/4 years old, how can you expect a child like that to know better?"
But maybe I'm wrong to think you could.
"This shift comes after the state had to stop several executions because prison officials were unable to successfully insert an IV line into an inmate sentenced to die by lethal injection before midnight—with attempts leading to gruesome physical injuries for inmates. "
Maybe I'd give a damn if it weren't for all the medical agony I've gone through without having murdered anybody.
Age restriction / age-of-consent laws are all ridiculous, arbitrary, and implemented by clueless elected officials and their bureaucrat hangers-on. It all makes no sense that you can serve in the military but can't buy a drink, or in some states you can get married but can't get a driver's license. He did the crime now he must pay the price - I don't care if he was 8 or 18 or 98. The kid who shot his teacher needs to locked up somewhere for a good long time.
I have to agree. I was an E-5 in the Navy, responsible for 10 guys and 6 helicopters before my 21st birthday, and I wasn't considered responsible enough to drink a beer.
Will you be playing Santa Claus this year?
i cannot give one shit about his age when he murdered his victim. he's a brutal killer that needs to meet his maker. asap.
Emma:
The brain science is a canard.
Somehow, 99.999% of 16-25 year olds, somehow restrain themselves from committing capital murderers.
Alabama law does not restrict 18 year olds from being subject to the death penalty and federal law permits it as well.
Governments should have the power to kill, with self defense, defense of others, in a just war and with executions, all against unjust aggressors, in those circumstances, when protecting innocent lives.