WASHINGTON (AP) -- Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, the American Medical Association and 48 nations are among those lobbying the Supreme Court to end the execution of killers who committed their crimes before age 18.

The United States is among only a handful of nations that allow the practice. The high court will reconsider this fall whether such executions are constitutional.

A collection of death penalty opponents on Monday planned to challenge the practice.

a collection of out-of touch dimwits don't realize the impending population crisis that is coming.

"By continuing to execute child offenders in violation of international norms, the United States is not just leaving itself open to charges of hypocrisy, but is also endangering the rights of many around the world," said the filing on behalf of Nobel Peace Prize winners, including former President Carter and former Soviet President Gorbachev.

in another attempt to justify the argument that there is not a population problem, the world turns and bashes the united states for killing killers.

"Countries whose human rights records are criticized by the United States have no incentive to improve their records when the United States fails to meet the most fundamental, baseline standards," it said.

what fundamental baseline standards are these? the united states criticizes other countries for slave labor, not killing killers, there is a difference.

The 25-nation European Union, plus Mexico, Canada and other nations argued that execution of juvenile killers "violates widely accepted human rights norms and the minimum standards of human rights set forth by the United Nations."

aha! widely accepted norms and minimum standards set forth by the UNITED NATIONS?! i call credibility gap. this wouldn't happen to be the same united nations that always gets to have it both ways, would it? the same united nations that on one hand tries to help children of the world by telling them to make more, then on the other funnels money through a bogus aid program to a regime practicing genocide and sponsoring terrorism? so we should listen to a bunch of socialist eurotrash, mexico, a nation which costs our nation 5 billion per year to subsidize their citizens on our lands, and canada, who have no defense besides us?

Mexico noted separately that three of the 73 current death row inmates condemned for killings that took place before they were 18 are Mexican nationals.

and 700 million dollars was spent in california alone housing mexican nationals who came to the united states and committed crimes. where is that mentioned in this story? i say kill the three, and dump their lifeless carcasses on the steps of mr. fox's house of corruption. to hell with the mexican government and their policies. nevermind armando garcia and the others like him killing americans in america, only to flee home to no death penalty mexico. where's that mentioned?

The American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association and other medical and mental health groups also told the court they oppose execution of teen killers, as did the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

and it is in their best interests to say so. the AMA and APA, for the lifelong profits off the healthcare and 'well being'of the inmates, paid for by the people that decide it was in their best interest to take this person and put them there. and the catholic church because father badtouch needs more sheep to fleece.

Diplomats including former undersecretary of state Thomas Pickering and former ambassador to France Felix Rohatyn argued that growing international consensus against such executions leaves the U.S. diplomatically isolated.

diplomats? mr. pickering, this is why your ass wasn't THE secretary of state, merely a useless overpaid underling riding the coattails of the clinton administration. and a former ambassador to france? you mean the country that got blowed up in 1995 by algerian terrorists and now happily houses them for life in a prison? there's a nation with resolve who should be listened to. france, the country where the people spit on lance armstrong for winning their bicycle race 5 times and will win an unprecendented sixth? how's that for diplomacy. and nice use of the vague 'growing international consensus' statement, as if that means anything other than nothing.

The United States executed more young killers than the rest of the world combined between 1990 and 2003, the diplomats' filing said.

no, i believe that honor goes to yasser arafat, and his brainwashed people. oh wait, you mean state executions, not state-sponsored, right?

In the past four years, only five nations have executed juveniles, the diplomats said: Congo, China, Iran, Pakistan and the United States.

so that means that pakistan, iran, china, united states and congo all understand that a killer can't be reformed. anything else?

"In no other area of human rights does the United States consider these nations to be our equals," the filing said.

and america is evil too, yes? just ask 'the world'. so they know all about human rights and are going to tell us how it's done.

Two friend-of-the-court briefs filed earlier support continuation of the practice.

make that three. i am a friend of a court that kills killers, regardless of age. i fully support continuation of the practice.

"(Our) experience strongly indicates that a bright-line rule categorically exempting 16- and 17-year-olds from the death penalty -- no matter how elaborate the plot, how sinister the killing, or how sophisticated the cover up -- would be arbitrary at best and downright perverse at worst," lawyers for Alabama, Delaware, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Virginia told the court.

so in other words, these lawyers didn't say a damn thing, other than 'we think you should let killers walk among us because the bright-line rule indicates they won't kill again. and if they do kill again, we make money from it, so we're for it'.

Those states are among 19 that allow execution of killers who were 16 or 17 at the time of the crime. Not all states that allow the death penalty apply it to underage killers, and no state allows the execution of those who were younger than 16 at the time of the crime.

well that needs some reworking. as if there weren't 12-13 year olds doing drive-bys to get into their little street gang. and where is the accountability of the parents?

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from Missouri, where the state Supreme Court declared juvenile executions unconstitutional last year.

and until something happens, this is hearsay.

Christopher Simmons was 17 when he and an accomplice broke into the Fenton, Missouri, home of Shirley Crook in 1993, then bound her with tape, electrical wire and the belt from her bathrobe and pushed her off a railroad bridge to drown.

Prosecutors said Simmons told teenage friends that they would get away with it because of their ages.

i guess that intent and motive to kill all stop when people turn 18? how many more innocent people like this shirley crook must die before we kill the youth that kill?

The liberal wing of the nine-justice Supreme Court is already on record supporting 18 as the minimum age of eligibility for the death penalty. Those four justices took an extraordinary step in the fall of 2002, signing a dissent in an appeal by a death row inmate that called it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers.

four of nine is not a majority. i only hope that some 14 year old butchers up their grandchildren, just so they can sit on their laurels and be proudof their decision to let the killer live. liberal wing? this is not a partisan issue, try telling that to the AP. dumbasses. more like stupid irrational wing. nothing to do with the (d) or the (r) next to the name,

"The practice of executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote then. He was joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

decency? what's that subjective word about? is this the same decency that the FCC feels is their right to mandate upon, trampling the first amendment? did i miss the bill of rights amendment entitling the youth to kill with no remorse nor fear of capital punishment? these jackasses are relics of the past for thinking that civilized society allows youth a free pass when they kill someone. and their irrational belief systems will cripple the court systems until the great day that they are no longer able to serve, meaning they die.

The issue turns on the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishments," and is similar in many ways to the question of whether mentally retarded killers can be executed for their crime. The Supreme Court banned that practice in 2002.

killing killers is not cruel and unusual punishment. letting them walk the streets because they are young is cruel punishment to the overwhelming majority of those that do not kill others. but i guess the majority has no rights in cases like this. carry on. and as for the 'mentally retarded' that kill, well... kill them too. nothing says we're a bunch of tards like letting some 'mentally retarded' person walk around after they hacked up someone, on account of being a tard. i'm not a tard.

The Case is Roper v. Simmons, 03-633.

and somewhere tonight a scumbag lawyer is grinning because he convinced at least 1 of 12 jurors that little timmy .22 or susie sawed-off can be saved or rehabilitated and won't kill again. good job, scumbag.