Roper_vs_Simmons

The Opinion In the case of Roper vs. Simmons, the basis of the supreme courts opinion was founded on the principals of several arguments established in a number of cases in previous years. The opinion of the courts was to go with the national consensus that the death penalty for juvenile offenders was cruel and unusual punishment. The cases of Stanford vs. Kentucky, Atkins vs. Virginia and Thomas vs. Oklahoma are a few cases all involving juveniles and the sentencing structure as well as whether or not juveniles (primarily those between 15 and 18 years of age) should be sentenced to death where the executions of juveniles under the age of sixteen was banned, opening a provisional pathway for juveniles above the age of sixteen to suffer execution. Roper vs. Simmons however, broke the paradigm and the ruling was changed. Within the criminal justice arena, youth are more likely to benefit when lawmakers acknowledge the restrictions of their decision-making capability. When the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the juvenile death penalty in Roper v. Simmons, it was based in part on an observation of adolescents as less mature and therefore less liable than adults. “The plurality opinion explained that no death penalty State that had given express consideration to a minimum age for the death penalty had set the age lower than 16.... The plurality also observed that [t]he conclusion that it would offend civilized standards of decency to execute a person who was less than 16 years old at the time of his or her offense is consistent with the views that have been expressed by respected professional organizations, by other nations that share our Anglo-American heritage, and by the leading members of the Western European community.... The opinion further noted that juries imposed the death penalty on offenders under 16 with exceeding rarity; the last execution of an offender for a crime committed under the age of 16 had been carried out in 1948, 40 years prior”, Roper vs. Simmons, 543 U.S.7 (2005). The Roper Court called attention to three areas of divergence between juveniles and adults: impulsivity, vulnerability to peer pressure, and the lack of character development. According to Roper v. Simmons, “the death penalty for juveniles under the age of 18 at the time of the crime is a violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments”, Roper vs. Simmons, 543 U.S. 21 (2005). At the age of 17, Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death in 1993. Simmons attorney submitted a series of appeals to both state and federal courts continuously for about 11 years, but each appeal was rejected. Finally, in 2002, “the Missouri Supreme Court stayed Simmons’s execution while the U.S. Supreme Court decided Atkins v. Virginia, a case that dealt with the execution of the mentally ill”, Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 27 (2005). After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing the mentally challenged violated the Eighth and 14th Amendment prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment, because a majority of Americans found it cruel and unusual, the Missouri Supreme Court decided to reconsider Simmons' case. Using the reasoning from the Atkins case, the Missouri court decided, six to three, that the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentucky, which held that executing minors was not unconstitutional, was no longer valid. The opinion in Stanford v. Kentucky was based on a study that the majority of Americans at that particular time, did not consider the execution of minors to be cruel and unusual. The Missouri court, citing numerous laws passed since 1989 that limited the scope of the death penalty, held that national opinion had in fact changed. Finding that a majority of Americans were now opposed to the execution of minors, the court held that such executions were now unconstitutional. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the government argued that allowing a state court to overturn a Supreme Court decision by looking at "evolving standards" would be dangerous, because state courts could just as easily decide that executions prohibited by the Supreme Court (such as the execution of the mentally ill in Atkins v. Virginia) were now permissible due to a change in the beliefs of the American people. The reality is that the consenting opinion of the courts and the public now feel that executing minors is "cruel and unusual punishment", which fortunately has been prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The majority cited a consensus against the juvenile death penalty among state legislatures, and its own determination that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for minors. Dissenting Opinion The Dissenting argument for this case was presented by Justices’ Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas, and Justice O’Connor’s submitted a separate dissent. The basis of contention or the most immediate objection of the court's two originalist Justices, Scalia and Thomas, is not whether such a national consensus has developed or not, but instead the question as to why a national consensus of the people should even be relevant. As pointed out in the court document Roper vs. Simmons (2005), from an originalist perspective, the question brought forth by Roper v. Simmons is far more challenging than the question the Court responds to in its verdict; the question should not be does society now look negatively on the death sentencing of minors, and if this happens to be the case, how can the justice system now compensate for the change' But, instead, the question should be was death sentencing for minors cruel and unusual from the very beginning, even at the point at which the Bill of Rights was approved' Additionally, what is equally disturbing to Justice Scalia is the justice systems willingness to use foreign law as a tool to reiterate or translate the Constitution. Scalia’s dissent not only questions the significance of foreign law, but according to Roper vs. Simmons (2005),it also “accuses the court of invoking alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignoring it otherwise"; using as an example the United State’s stance on abortion – the U.S. laws are not as limiting as the international model; consequently further posing the question to other Justices of: "what is the criterion for whether or not to adopt foreign precedent' That it agrees with you'” Roper vs. Simmons (2005). It is clear that Justice Scalia, also speaking on behalf of Justice Thomas, who takes the same stance, is merely somewhat short of outraged by the majorities decision as he feels the need to remind them that the courts responsibility is govern what the law says as opposed to what the law should say. It appears that the courts opinion to says that the constitution was not wrong fifteen years ago, but the meaning of what was stated fifteen years ago has changed, eludes to a sense of idiocracy as it relates to the constitution. It is difficult for one to understand the how the system can now override that which was once determined and then question the minor’s ability to think clearly as that of an adult, after having committed such a heinous criminal act. Neither Justice’s Scalia nor Thomas understand how after many years the courts decide that a document in which According to Roper vs. Simmons (2005), Scalia stands firmly on his point of view that “even if what the law says might be considered "wrong" when viewed in terms of an "evolving standard of decency", it is for the legislature, acting in the manner prescribed in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, to offer amendments to the Constitution in light of the evolving standard of decency, not for the Court to arbitrarily make de facto amendments.” Scalia further goes on to defend the people and their right to imposition, by attorneys trying to infringe upon the peoples decisions and beliefs. Scalia believes that the states should have the option or the right to decide on matters related to the death penalty and/or capital punishment. The Supreme Court has the right to overrule decisions made by the state. Justice O'Connor on the other hand agreed with the Court's majority opinion in form, however, the opinion of the court lacked the foundation and substance needed to have full agreement or consent. Justice O'Connor also agreed that when reviewing and reiterating the Eighth Amendment, the Court must consider the “objective evidence of a national consensus and its own independent judgment regarding proportionality ... .. However, O'Connor disagreed with the relative significance that the Court afforded such measures as well as its independent judgment regarding proportionality” (Roper vs. Simmons (2005). Overall O’Connor seemed to be more compelled by the significant evidence of opposition to executing the mentally retarded. What policy and treatment implications can you envision as a result of this decision' And Do you believe that juveniles should be put to death' Why or why not' As a result of the ruling, that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles, there will need to be more policies or laws put in place to discourage juveniles from committing crimes on the basis that the penalty will not be a sever as it would if they were of age. Right now in Chicago, children are killing children every other day – with no recourse. As for the treatment process, I’m not really sure exactly what should be implicated as I cannot say that I am completely against the death penalty for a juvenile that commits a crime and does not suffer from mental illness of some sort. Personally, I feel the system is giving the juvenile offender far too much leverage. I think that the criminal justice system has at some point and time underestimated the juvenile in his/her ability to understand and comprehend what they are doing whether it is right or wrong. It certain that they are capable of committing such heinous crimes, clearly I believe they understand how and why they did it. As for whether or not I believe that juveniles should receive the death penalty or not, I can honestly say I am not apart of the national consensus that feels as if juveniles should not be penalized or accountable for their own behavior. I mean what are we teaching them when we say that a 17 yr old can kidnap, sexually assault and kill a person, and we follow up with but he’s only 17 and has had a troubled past; So although he had done all of this, we can still offer him an alternative punishment, which says that the system lacks clarity, structure and cohesiveness as far as penalties for criminal acts. Works Cited Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), http://www.njdc.info/pdf/SimmonsDecision.pdf N.A. (2004, October 14). Court must be moderate on controversial rulings. University Wire (University of Florida) retrieved October 17, 2009, from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1042 N.A. (2004, September 27). Death penalty for minors: Cruel and unusual. American Medical News Retrieved October 17, 2009, from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1042 National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty(NCADP). Roper v. Simmons: Summary, Effect and Key Points. Retrieved, October 22, 2009, from http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/pressRelease.jsp'key=48&t=