[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 3]
[House]
[Page 3371]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         TALE OF TWO YOUNG MEN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Davis of Kentucky). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about two young men. They 
both grew up in Houston, Texas. They both grew up without any family 
support. They both were basically raised by others. They were both 
named Michael. And they both chose careers in the criminal justice 
system.
  Michael Lopez chose in the criminal justice system the career of 
crime. He started committing violent crimes at the age of 11. He spent 
a lot of time in and out of the criminal justice system. He was a gang 
member, a drug abuser, committed numerous robberies against other 
juveniles, a burglar, and a thug in his own community.
  Michael Eakin also chose criminal justice as a career, but he chose 
it as a police officer. Their paths crossed on a quiet peaceful night 
in Houston, Texas, after Officer Eakin stopped Lopez and his fellow 
gang members who were cruising Houston, Texas, looking for criminal 
opportunities.
  When Officer Eakin stopped the vehicle, Lopez jumped from the 
vehicle, took off running and Officer Eakin made the decision to chase 
Michael Lopez. After capturing Lopez, Lopez pulled out a pistol, 
pointed it at point blank range and shot Officer Eakin, and then he 
fled in the darkness of the night.
  Lopez was 17 and on probation for criminal offenses. Eakin was 24 and 
a rookie police officer. Lopez was charged with capital murder of a 
police officer. In Texas, a 17-year-old is an adult by State law for 
criminal law purposes and not a juvenile.
  It is a long-established rule of law that the States determine the 
age of accountability for criminal law purposes. Not the Federal 
Government, not the Federal courts.
  I was the judge in the Lopez case, having been a judge for 22 years 
in criminal cases. A jury heard the case in my court. A jury found the 
defendant Michael Lopez guilty of capital murder of a police officer. 
Court TV even showed this on national television. The same jury 
unanimously found the defendant would be a continuing threat to society 
in the future. The jury unanimously found there was no mitigation that 
would warrant a sentence less than death with Michael Lopez.
  The defendant was assessed the death penalty by a jury in 6 hours. 
During sentencing I referred to the defendant as a street terrorist 
based upon the evidence in the case. On appeal, the highest court in 
Texas referred to the defendant as a mean little guy and upheld the 
death penalty.
  Now the Supreme Court has gotten involved in these types of cases and 
declared once and for all that no one 17 or under can be executed for 
the crimes that they commit. Citing international court decisions and 
the so-called evolving United States Constitution, the Court yesterday 
struck down these types of cases five to four.
  The Supreme Court of the United States should not look to foreign 
courts for guidance but to the United States Constitution because that 
is what they are sworn to uphold. The Supreme Court once again has 
discriminated against victims based upon the age of the defendant. 
Whether or not a person agrees or disagrees with the death penalty, 
whether or not a person feels the age of accountability should be 17 or 
18 or 21, there is no precedent in law that the Supreme Court may 
arbitrarily say a 17-year-old is a mere child and an 18-year-old is an 
adult.
  The Supreme Court has once again promoted the philosophy that America 
is becoming the land of excusable conduct in our criminal courts. There 
should be consequences for criminal conduct even for 17-year-olds.
  The Supreme Court has replaced the law of the land with its own 
personal opinion and European thought. This is an affront to the rule 
of law, to the Constitution, to the 10th amendment. It is an affront to 
the peace officers in the United States, and it is an affront to 
Officer Michael Eakin and his family.

                          ____________________