Continued Violations of International Law by the United States in Applying the Death Penalty to MInors and Possible Repercussions to the American Criminal Justice System
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
when it addressed the similar question of whether or not the execution of children younger than sixteen years of age was constitutional in Thompson v. Oklahoma. 20 There, the Court concluded in a plurality opinion that imposing the death penalty on a fifteen year old offender would "offend civilized standards of decency" in violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. 21 The plurality decision relied upon the views of the international community regarding the juvenile death penalty. 22 The Court looked to several nations' attitudes against the juvenile death penalty in reaching its conclusion that a consensus existed among the international community opposing the execution of children. 23 In addition, Justice Stevens noted three current international treaties which prohibit the use of the death penalty on juvenile offenders. 24 These treaties included: Article 6 Paragraph 5 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) -a global civil rights treaty prohibiting the execution of minors 20.Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988) (Stevens, J., plurality opinion).Thompson stands for the proposition that the imposition of the death penalty on juveniles is too extreme a punishment due to the fact that fifteen year olds do not possess the requisite culpability to be death penalty eligible because "during the formative years of childhood and adolescence, minors often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment expected of adults."Id. at 834 (quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 86, 104, 115-16, n.11 (1958)).21. Id. at 821.See also Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958) (Warren, C.J. plurality opinion) (holding that "[t]he basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man .The amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.")Id. at 100-01.22. Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 830 (1988) (Stevens, J., plurality opinion).23.The Court stated that "[t]he conclusion that it would offend civilized standards of decency to execute a person who was less than 16 years old at the time of his or her offense is consistent with the views that have been expressed by other nations that share our Anglo-American heritage, and by the leading members of the Western European community."Id. at 830.Subsequently the Court mentioned the fact that several nations had either abolished the death penalty or restricted its use by excluding juveniles, id. at 830-31, specifically noting that the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and the Soviet Union prohibit the execution of juveniles; that Canada, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland allow capital punishment only for "exceptional crimes such as treason[;]" and that West Germany, France, Portugal, The Netherlands, and all of the Scandinavian countries forbid capital punishment.Id.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».