3 Fla. convicts
spared death after high court ends juvenile
executions
By Peter Franceschina Staff Writer Posted March 2 2005
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that states can no
longer execute convicted murderers who committed their crimes as
juveniles, knocking more than 70 defendants around the country,
including three in Florida, off Death Row.
In the 5-4
decision, the justices found that the execution of anyone who was 17
or younger at the time they killed violates the constitution's ban
on cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling overturned a 1989
decision that permitted such executions. It was hailed by juvenile
advocates and death penalty foes.
"Our
determination that the death penalty is disproportionate punishment
for offenders under 18 finds confirmation in the stark reality that
the United States is the only country in the world that continues to
give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty," Justice
Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
Two of the three men
on Florida's Death Row who were condemned for crimes as juveniles
likely will become eligible for parole, said Bob Sparks, a spokesman
for Attorney General Charlie Crist. One of them, Cleo LeCroy, 41,
was convicted of shooting to death a Miami-Dade couple in 1981 in
western Palm Beach County.
"Today is certainly a big victory
for Florida and justice," said Abraham J. Bonowitz, director of
Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.
"Recent
science has shown brain development continues into your 20s. We
don't allow children to buy cigarettes, or buy alcohol or sign
contracts. The only time we consider children [to be] adults is when
they commit a horrible crime, then we want to punish them
harshly."
The majority wrote that as a society, views on the
death penalty have evolved quickly since the last time the court
considered the issue. They also wrote that juveniles don't possess
the same maturity as adults, are more vulnerable to negative
influences and oftentimes don't possess an incorrigible character.
Minors in most states can't vote, serve on a jury or marry without
parental consent.
"The age of 18 is the point where society
draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It
is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility
ought to rest," Kennedy wrote.
The second condemned man in
Florida who will be eligible for parole is James Bonifay, 31, who
was convicted in the shooting of a Pensacola man in
1991.
Before 1994, Florida law allowed for the possibility of
parole on a life sentence after 25 years. LeCroy and Bonifay
committed their crimes before the change. The third Florida
defendant, Nathan Ramirez, 27, was convicted of raping and killing a
Pasco County woman in 1995, so he will spend the rest of his life in
prison.
LeCroy is still pursuing appeals in federal and state
courts. His case garnered new attention in 2003 when his brother,
Jon LeCroy, who was acquitted of being an accomplice, testified he
was the one who shot the couple, according to a court transcript.
Jon LeCroy subsequently refused to testify further.
State
Sen. Victor Crist, R-Tampa, has pushed for legislation to bring
Florida in line with 18 other states that set the minimum age at 18.
He praised the decision, but said it was one that should have been
made by state and federal legislators, not the
court.
"Today's society, generally speaking, has not been
supportive of executing anyone under the age of 18," he said. "I do
support the death penalty for those who are unquestionably guilty
and commit a heinous, torturous crime."
Ron Ishoy, a
spokesman for Broward County State Attorney Michael Satz, said no
one in his office could remember seeking the death penalty for a
juvenile dating to Satz taking office in 1977.
In Palm Beach
County, State Attorney Barry Krischer has not sought the death
penalty for a juvenile since he took office in 1993, spokesman
Michael Edmondson said.
Only Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia
have executed juvenile offenders in the past 10 years. Tuesday's
ruling throws out the death penalty for minors in 19 states. The
decision arose out of a 2003 Missouri case.
In a dissent,
Justice Antonin Scalia disputed that a "national consensus" exists
and said the majority opinion was based on the "flimsiest of
grounds." The appropriateness of capital punishment should be
determined by individual states, he wrote.
The ruling
continues the court's narrowing of the death penalty's scope. In
1988, the court prohibited the execution of those 15 and younger.
Three years ago, justices banned executions of the mentally
retarded.
"The lasting significance of this case is that it
opens the door to the abolition of the death penalty judicially,"
said Jordan Steiker, a death penalty expert at the University of
Texas law school. "If a national consensus can emerge without a
majority of the death penalty states moving toward abolition, then
it suggests that judicial abolition is a genuine
prospect."
The Associated Press contributed to this
report. Peter Franceschina can be reached at
pfranceschina@sun-sentinel.com or
561-832-2894.
Subscribe today to the
Sun-Sentinel and find out how to get one week
extra! Click
here or call 1-877-READ-SUN.
Please
register or login
.gif){kind=spacer}
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=spacer}
.gif){kind=small}
