Response by Christy Hardegre, Maura Shaughnessy, and Bonnie Tuten

For our post using Toulmin view, we decided to use an article in today’s copy of The New York Times. This article was about the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roper v. Simmons, where the Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful to execute minors despite the severity of the case. We used this article to define the parts of an argument as listed by Toulmin. First was the claim which states that it is unethical to execute juveniles. This is the conclusion of the argument made by the Supreme Court. Next was the grounds, we believe that the grounds of this argument was that a person under the age of 18 can not be held accountable for their decisions and actions. The majority stated that "When a juvenile commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties but the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity." This shows that a juvenile should be allowed to reach maturity to understand the consequences of his actions. Then was the warrant, which allows the audience to understand the move from the grounds to the claim. For this article the warrant was summarized in the quote from Justice Kennedy that stated "The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many reasons between childhood and adulthood." To back this warrant is the generally recognized statement of the American public that 18 is that age at which a person is allowed to vote, join the military, and own property. The rebuttal for this argument is established by Sandra Day O’Connor in her statement that "The court's decision today establishes a categorical rule forbidding the execution of any offender for any crime committed before his 18th birthday, no matter how deliberate, wanton, or cruel the offense.” Many people feel that premeditation overrides age as the deciding factor in the execution of human life.