Supreme Court to Decide if Juveniles May Be Executed

The Supreme Court, agreeing to hear the plea of a 16-year-old sent to Oklahoma’s Death Row, said Monday that it will decide whether states may execute juveniles.

Twenty-seven of the 37 states with death penalty laws permit capital punishment for killers under 18, but such executions are rare. Since the high court restored the death penalty in 1976, three people who committed murders when they were under 18 were later put to death.

It “offends American traditions of justice” to give the death penalty “for a crime committed by a child of 15,” said an attorney for William Wayne Thompson, who joined with three adults to murder an Oklahoma man in 1983. After the jury was shown several “ghastly color” photos of the mutilated corpse, all four received death sentences.

The case of Thompson vs. Oklahoma (86-6169) gives the court a chance to further limit the death penalty. Although staunchly upholding a state’s right to impose capital punishment, the justices over the last decade have put stricter limits on who can be executed and under what circumstances.

In 1977, for example, the high court ended capital punishment for rape. In 1980, the court said a convicted killer must have a chance to present favorable testimony by character witnesses in a separate proceeding to a jury before a sentence is imposed. And, last year, the court said states could not execute Death Row inmates judged to be insane.

Thompson’s attorney also contends that the process of deciding which young killers will be sentenced to death is “almost totally random,” noting that 36 of 6,000 juveniles arrested for homicide between 1982 and 1986 drew capital punishment sentences.

Only three states--Delaware, South Dakota and Oklahoma--have no minimum age for the death penalty, but many allow the execution of convicted murderers between ages 16 and 18. California’s law authorizes capital punishment but limits it to those over 18.

Meanwhile, in another case, the justices agreed to decide whether states may prohibit stores from displaying sexually explicit magazines or books where they may be seen by minors.

In 1985, the Virginia Legislature extended its law forbidding the sale of pornographic materials to minors to include a ban on the display of all books or magazines that could be “deemed harmful to juveniles.”

Challenged as Too Broad

Two bookstores, joined by the American Booksellers Assn., quickly challenged the law as being too broadly worded, and they won orders from a federal court last year that invalidated the statute. In testimony, Virginia officials acknowledged that it could have been judged a crime to display “Hollywood Wives,” by Jackie Collins, a national best-seller.

But, in its appeal to the high court (Virginia vs. American Booksellers Assn., 86-1034), Virginia officials said the law was a reasonable extension of a 1968 Supreme Court ruling that allowed states to halt the sale of obscene materials to minors. They argued that, because the law never went into effect, it cannot be judged unduly harsh or restrictive.

Twenty-eight states, including California, have similar laws prohibiting displays of explicit materials, the court was told.

Returning from a monthlong recess, the justices handed down brief orders in more than 350 cases Monday. The vast majority of the appeals were turned down without comment. Sixteen cases, including the cases from Oklahoma and Virginia, were granted review during the court’s next term, which begins in October.

Other Rulings

In other actions, the court:

--Let stand an Illinois law requiring the use of seat belts. A woman fined $25 for not wearing a seat belt appealed on the grounds that it violated her constitutional “right to privacy.” But the appeal (Kohrig vs. Illinois, 86-1095), the first to test mandatory seat belt laws, was dismissed without comment.

--Agreed to decide whether school officials may expel a handicapped child who violently disrupts his class. A San Francisco principal tried to expel such a student in 1980, but a federal appeals court said the student cannot be removed without a hearing and exhaustion of his parents’ appeals. California officials argue that this ruling (Honig vs. John Doe, 86-728) will have “terrible consequences” because such appeals last for years.

--Agreed to decide a Medicaid dispute between California and the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. Federal officials say California has adopted an “overly generous” income limit for “medically needy” adults of $709 a month. The state says it relied on a 1979 federal guideline (Bowen vs. Cubanski, 86-863).

--Agreed to decide whether a “memory loss” by the victim of a beating can be used by a court to throw out a conviction. A prison guard at Lompoc, Calif., who was hit over the head with a pipe by a prisoner, remembered his assailant when he awoke but could not recall this information at the trial. Because this memory lapse prevented a cross-examination, an appeals court threw out the conviction (U.S. vs. Owens, 86-877).