Good news, everyone! The US Supreme Court has abolished the death penalty for murderers who committed their crimes while under the age of 18, ruling it unconstitutional. Although the court voted 5-4, narrowly avoiding a penalty shootout, one vote is enough to swing it (if you’ll excuse my putting the “pun” in “capital punishment”). According to the Beeb, this ruling affects murderers who were 16 or 17 at the time as a similar ruling was made for under-16s in 1988.

As with all arbitrary age limits, this prompts a further question: why is it cruel and unusual to execute someone who murdered at 17 years 364 days old but not cruel and unusual for the state to kill someone who murdered at their 18th birthday party?

Peter Black points out an article about Prince Charles on the <spit> Daily Mail website.

Meanwhile, new questions arose last night over the Queen’s faith in Prince Charles’s ability to succeed her and about her view of Mrs Parker Bowles.

According to Royal sources, she was ‘having to do a lot of deep thinking’ about Charles’s future as King – with a suggestion that the best outcome for the Monarchy would be to skip a generation and for Prince William to be crowned instead.

In the unlikely event that the Queen really is considering this, she would be proposing a massive change to our constitution. In one move the Royal Family would declare that the hereditary principle doesn’t work: that the oldest son of the monarch isn’t, after all, the best person to be king. And once that is established, what justification is there for the hereditary principle to continue at all?

Little though I want to stand up for Prince Charles, I would question the public’s support for Prince William to succeed the Queen. Prince William may not have said or done anything yet to turn the population against him, but he’s only in his early twenties. If you’d asked people when Charles was William’s age how they viewed him, he would have had a glowing report. Charles has alienated people but he has had more than fifty years to do so. For all we know, Prince Williams’ views may be even more curious than his father’s.

Just a bunch of stuff I’ve liked on the interweb today.

Index on Censorship reminds us the Prince Charles derided the Human Rights Act only to have his impending marriage rescued by it. His 2001 letter is on the Guardian site.

Cage of Monkeys reports possibly the last speech in the House of Commons from Labour MP Brian Sedgemore.

Have we all, individually and collectively, no shame? I suppose that once one has shown contempt for liberty by voting against it in the Lobby, it becomes easier to do it a second time and after that, a third time. Thus even Members of Parliament who claim to believe in human rights vote to destroy them.

(Via doctorvee.)

Via Metafilter, Desperate Houseflies.

Permalinks don’t semm to be working at Honeytom as I type, but he’s saved me a rant about Stephen Green and Christian Voice, those wacky funsters who think it’s OK to intimidate a cancer charity. It’s the February 24th entry and it’s worth reading to the end so you can taste the irony.

Finally, opinionated music lovers could do worse than take part in Troubled Diva‘s “Which Decade is Tops for Pops?” Compare every song in the Top 10 with the corresponding from 1965, 1975, 1985 and 1995. The decade with the most votes wins. (Found via New York London Paris Munich.)

I was planning to write a spiel about the government’s dreadful plans for house arrest on the whim of the Home Secretary. However, since Chris Lightfoot has already said what I was planning to say, I’ll suggest you read that instead.

The soundbites of the debate shown on TV last night were particularly dispiriting. I heard rhetoric about balancing civil liberties with national security and about Charles Clarke having a responsibility to defend us all from The Terrorists. But I didn’t hear why house arrest (which he admitted wasn’t needed at present) is the answer. Just saying “It’s necessary” over and over doesn’t make it any more true. He could have said “9pm curfews for all under-45s” or “CCTV in every home” and used exactly the same rhetoric that it would protect us.*

There are two questions I’d like Tony Blair to answer if he happens to log on today.

1. Given your argument, Tony, that the civil liberties that form our way of life must be limited in order to protect our way of life, which civil liberties do you consider too precious to ever consider restricting? Any at all?

2. Labour will, as usual, claim that anyone not supporting their proposals is helping the criminals/Terrorists/ne’er-do-wells. In order to safeguard this country’s national security, would you therefore recommend voting for a pro-house arrest Tory if they are standing against an anti-house arrest Labour MP?*

*I’m aware these are somewhat facetious. Apologies.