Court Divided Over Teen Executions

US — Justices have had to weigh the deterrence effect against evolving social standards in the case of Roper v Simmons. Two teens had kidnapped and killed a Missouri woman in 1993. One of the teens had been sentenced to life in prison while the other had been sentenced to death. Christopher Simmons, the older of the two, was meted out the death sentenced. He appealed and had his sentenced overturned by Missouri’s highest court. His case is now before the Supreme Court.

Nineteen states in the US allow capital punishment for juveniles, and more than 70 people who committed crimes as 16- and 17-year-olds are on death row. The question for the justices is whether those executions are unconstitutionally cruel. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the dividing line between adults and children is 18. That’s the age Americans have to be, she said, ‘to vote, to sit on juries, to serve in the military.’

Seth Waxman, attorney for Simmons, said countries such as Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia that used to execute juvenile offenders have now gone on record to be opposing capital punishment for minors, leaving America ‘literally alone in the world’.

The Supreme Court has looked increasingly at international opinion, and its four most liberal members have gone on record against a practice they said was ‘a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilised society.’

Former President Carter was quoted saying that ‘basic principles of American justice require rejection of child offender executions once and for all.’ Another big name supporter Simmons has is Everett Koop, a former surgeon general, who has said that scientific research shows that ‘juveniles are under-developed and immature, particularly in the areas of the brain that dictate reason, impulse control and decision-making.’ (Source: www.cnn.com)

CJ Plans to Review Justice System

Malaysia — The Judiciary is undertaking a study to come up with a better system of administering justice to overcome the hiccups experienced following decisions in recent high profile cases.

CJ Tan Sri Ahmad Fairuz said the study was aimed at formulating a system where the truth prevailed and not one where the side with a more persuasive legal mind triumphed. He said the study would look at the Inquisitorial, Islamic, Social and Communist laws to come up with a system that dispensed justice in the best possible manner.

He further added that there was no reason why the Common Law should prevail if it did not serve the purpose of dispensing justice fairly. Instead, he was of the view that the law, like all other disciplines, had to move with the times. He said only 20% of the countries used Common Law while laws in other countries had evolved to become more precise in addressing issues and dispensing justice. He urged the legal fraternity to be open about the study and not criticise the judiciary unduly. (Source: www.thestar.com.my)

Credit Card Giants Lose Court Bid

US — The US Supreme Court has upheld a decision that the giants had violated anti-trust laws and were anti-competitive. The case stemmed from a 1998 Justice Department lawsuit challenging the credit card issuers’ regulations.

The groups appealed after a court found they were wrong to block US banks from issuing credit cards from rival networks such as Discover and American Express. Discover card owner, Morgan Stanley, has long complained that the rules were anti-competitive and locked it out of a fast-growing business. Morgan Stanley would be seeking undisclosed damages from the two firms. (Source: news.bbc.co.uk)

Plans to Increase Female Judges

UK — Plans are being formulated by the government to increase the number of female judges in England and Wales by encouraging flexible working hours. Ministers hope that the move would make the job more attractive to women juggling careers with looking after children. Suggestions outlined in a consultation paper include part-time work for judges at Crown Court level and below and court sittings at weekends. The paper also considers ways to raise the number of ethnic minority judges.

Currently the percentage of female judges is only 15.8% of which only 7% were high court judges. This is a marked difference in comparison to 59% who are barristers and solicitors. Only 3.4% of judges were from the ethnic minority groups. Although one in four law students were from ethnic minorities there were no judges from these groups in the high courts.

Peter Herbert, chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers, said people needed to see society reflected more clearly on the bench to have confidence in the system. ‘They don’t even reflect the profession,’ he said.

Chairman of the Bar Council, Stephen Irwin QC said, ‘The Bar will do everything it can to make this work’ but added that the government needed to do its part too. ‘Already the positive steps that we take on education, training and access to the profession mean that half of new entrants to the Bar are women and nearly a fifth are from an ethnic minority background,’ he said. He added that there was a need to do all that was possible to ensure that every barrister with an interest in a judicial career is able to take up that option.

However, shadow Constitutional Affairs Secretary, Oliver Herald, said the government should not interfere in the process and should instead devote all its energies to ensuring that prisoners serve adequate and full sentences. (Source: news.bbc.co.uk)