Introduction and History:
Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death in 1993 after planning and committing capital murder at the age of 17 in Missouri. He appealed for post-conviction relief through federal and state courts and was rejected on all counts (1). At the time, the eighth amendment expressly prohibited the use of cruel and unusual punishment but execution of a juvenile under the age of 18 was not considered cruel or unusual until the landmark case of Atkins V. Virginia 536 U.S 304 was decided. The Supreme Court decided in Atkins V. Virginia that it was cruel and unusual to sentence a mentally disabled person to death (2). Simmons filed for a new post-conviction relief petition, this time using the Atkins V. Virginia case to his advantage, stating that the Constitution should prohibit the execution of a juvenile offender under the age of 18. The Atkins case provided the necessary precedence to include that execution of minors was in fact a breach of the eighth amendment under the sub category of “cruel and unusual punishment” (2). The ruling modified earlier rulings such as Stanford V. Kentucky in which the Supreme Court originally rejected the idea that execution of minors was cruel and unusual (4).
Section 1: Law On the Books, Ruling on Roper V. Simmons (2005)
The court drew its final ruling by the use of the eighth amendment. In order to implement the framework of this amendment, the Court referred to the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a mature society” (3) to determine what punishments are considered cruel and unusual and what punishments are not. Although there was no national consensus at the time (based on 22 of 37 death penalty states allowing for execution for 16 year olds and 25 out of 37 allowing 17 year olds), Atkins V. Virginia held that the “standards of decency” (2) had evolved and a national consensus was met. This gave leverage to Simmons in his petition, placing mentally disabled and juvenile offenders in the same category of cruel and unusual punishment (1).
The Supreme Court’s final decision on Roper V. Simmons was 5-4 in favor of the respondent, Christopher Simmons. They came to the conclusion that execution of minors violates the 8th amendment and is therefore unconstitutional in Federal law. The ruling came from the use of the “evolving standards” (3) in which there was a change in the beliefs of the American people. This case also brought international attention, and pressure to rule that the death penalty was a disproportionate punishment for anyone under the age of 18. The scope of implementation comes from their position regarding the difference between minors and adults; “their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult” (3) because they are more susceptible to immature behavior.
Two democrats, two outright republicans, and one moderate republican for a total of five justices voted that the execution of minors was indeed Unconstitutional based on the eighth amendment. Four outright conservatives voted against. In conclusion the Court’s opinion drew from three general differences between juveniles and adults.The first “[a] lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults and are more understandable among the young. These qualities often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions (3).” The second is that juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure. Finally the 3rd and final reason was that juvenile personality traits are not as well formed, not not as fixed, as compared to adults (1).
The dissenting opinions of Justice O’Connor, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Rehnquist was delivered by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. They believed that strongly that, “Neither the objective evidence of contemporary societal values, nor the Court’s moral proportionality analysis, nor the two in tandem suffice to justify this ruling.” The court’s holding is led and compelled by a “genuine national consensus” which the dissent argues against. The dissent believes there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrates a national consensus has emerged in the short period of time since they upheld Stanford V. Kentucky (4). The ruling itself of Roper V. Simmons overall was implemented by the judges within the court system. The cases after Simmons involving any type of death sentence trial of minors were automatically brought down to life without parole as the worst possible sentencing.
Part 2: Law in Action, Death Penalty, and Life Without Parole (LWP) to Adolescents and its Effects
Procedures used to enforce the law
In the case of Roper V. Simmons (2005) the Supreme Court’s final decision was that the death penalty to minors under the age of 18 was unconstitutional on the basis of cruel and unusual punishment as seen in the eight amendment. They also based their decision on two main platforms, one being the “evolving standards of decency”which recognized a new national consensus existed in support of the elimination of the execution of adolescents. The second platform was an independent study conducted by Supreme Court Justices to prove that minors have reduced culpability because their brains are not as fully developed as adults. The procedures used to enforce this law is simple, anytime there are cases involving capital offenses of children 17 years old or younger the death penalty is no longer an option. Instead, courts look into the seriousness of the crime without regard to the culpability of the minor. This means that courts simply find an alternative to the death penalty, a sentence that may be even, life without parole (LWOP). Many believe that life without parole for young offenders is just a slower form of death, still cruel and unusual in the sense that the offender is immature and not fully developed mentally.
Court Decisions that Effect the Implementation of the Law or Rule
In this situation, the law or rule at hand is the death penalty to minors or adolescents. the Court decision that has had the most effect on the implementation of the law is Roper V. Simmons (2005). Another very important Supreme Court case that lead to the Roper V. Simmons (2005) decision was a case that took place in 2004, Atkins V. Virginia. In this case a man was convicted of capital murder, robbery, and abduction. The defense relied on one witness a psychologist who testified that Atkins was in fact mentally-retarded (vernacular of back then). It was concluded that based on “evolving standards of decency” and independent studies, Justice Stevens wrote that, “Because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.” This level of reasoning was almost identically used in Roper V. Simmons (2005). The level of implementation parallels on all levels, interestingly enough it seems like the research from the 2004 case was almost directly referred to in Roper.
The Pattern of Enforcement
There is definitely a bias in the pattern of enforcement involving youths tried as adults, and youths being treated like adults when punished. Yearly, states in the U.S try nearly 215,000 juveniles as adults. Many of these juveniles are used by the system in different transfer mechanisms conducted by courts. Many times legislatures may deny juvenile courts jurisdiction’ to exclude those being tried as adults from their jurisdiction without any hearing (Benjamin Steiner). Basically, if courts feel that they are swamped with an excessive number of juvenile cases, they can pass several cases along to another jurisdiction. In most jurisdictions fourteen is the minimum transfer age while some states go as low as thirteen, 10, and no limit (Snyder and Sickmund Supra note 2). The adult status of adolescents tried as adults is determined 85% of the time by prosecutors based on the offense and the age (Juszkievacz). The two biases of the courts are racially motivated, based on consistent racial disparities being reported over decades. “As a result of successive screenings, differential processing, and cumulative disadvantage, minority youths comprise the majority of juveniles transferred to criminal court and three-quarters of all youths under age eighteen who enter prison (Barry C. Feld Univ. of Minnesota Law).” Once the juveniles that are convicted of capital offenses reach sentencing, many receive life without parole getting sentenced like adults, and are sent to the same prisons as adults (The Eighth Amendment and Juvenile Life Without Parole After Roper (2006). Some states, when sentencing very young children are required to not let youth be a mitigating factor. Some states deny explicitly the use of the “common law of infancy” defense to children at the ages of twelve and thirteen. Some of these twelve and thirteen year olds will then serve life without parole.
Evaluation of Effectiveness
Although the case of Roper V. Simmons (2005) may look like a victory to those individuals and organizations advocating for juvenile justice system reform, it really only does two things; makes the process of death to those that have committed (a) capital offense(s) much longer, and it also makes the system find ways around the death penalty using transfer mechanisms to blur the lines between adults and children when it comes to punishment. Many adults in modern day America practice discipling their children by taking away electronics such as their phones. Being a teen not too long ago, I remember trying to fulfill mu punishment honorably, but somehow was rarely the case and I always found a way around it. I either used my laptop to contact friends when I wanted, used friends phones, etc. This is what is happening with juvenile justice, the death penalty is taken away and the system is finding its way around it. It is not effective in its goal to reform juvenile justice, it actually only incites more corruption within our levels of jurisprudence. The abolition of the death penalty only provides a more certain death to minors that have been dented to LWOP. Not only are they going to die the same way adults do that are on LWOP/death row, they will be sent to the same prisons in the process.
Reforming the Law and its Enforcement
I attempted to contact a number of members from theAdolescent Development and Juvenile Justice Network (ADJJ) a network comprised of professors, doctors, and experts in the field of juvenile justice reform that advocated the abolishment of the juvenile death penalty. In 2015 they even celebrated the 10 year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision. I attempted contact through email, phone, and even twitter. I asked simple questions like, did they feel the abolishment of the death penalty was a victory? Why? Has it opened the doors to a more corrupt juvenile justice system? Do you feel like you have contributed to the 2,100 juveniles LWOPs in America? Does the Montgomery V. Louisiana (2016) decision that juvenile LWOPs is unconstitutional, provide actual justice instead of an attractive headline with the word ‘abolishment’ in it? A great number replied with “no comment” and the rest were not responsive at all.
It is 2017 and thanks to the Montgomery case LWOP has been ruled out of the conversation for youth offenders in America, something we have known since before the 2005 Roper case. On paper, the law has been reformed through the 2016 Montgomery case but there is still no consensus on what to do regarding children tried and convicted as adults. The best option in my opinion is called a “Youthful Discount” theorized by Barry C. Feld a professor at the Minnesota School of Law. He describes a sliding scale of diminished responsibility that corresponds with developmental differences. For example a seventeen year old may receive a sentence 50% of the adult length while a thirteen year old receives only 15% of an adult sentence. This gives the largest sentence reductions to the youngest and least mature. This “Youthful Discount” would bar the imposition of LWOP and other virtual life sentences because it is safe to say that children are not the same as adults. Although our law enforcement system has made great strides in the reformation of death penalty and LWOP, there is still great room for improvement, our people deserve justice. Word Count: 1991
Bibliography
Emens, Elizabeth F. “Aggravating Youth: Roper v Simmons and Age Discrimination.” The Supreme Court Review, vol. 2005, no. 1, 2005, pp. 51–102., doi:10.1086/655191.
2. Macvaugh, Gilbert S., and Mark D. Cummingham. “Atkins v. Virginia: Implications and Recommendations for Forensic Practice.” The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, vol. 37, no. 2-3, 2009, pp. 131–187., doi:10.1177/009318530903700203.
3. Home – Supreme Court of the United States, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-633.pdf. Accessed 23 Sept. 2017.
4. “Stanford v. Kentucky.” LII / Legal Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/492/361. Accessed 23 Sept. 2017.
5. Antonio, Michael E.; Fleury-Steiner, Benjamin; Hans, Valerie P.; and Bowers, William J., “Capital Jurors as the Litmus Test of Community Conscience for the Juvenile Death Penalty” (2004). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. 382. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/382
6. “YOUTH COURT CONSENT FORM I acknowledge receipt of the.” A Slower Form of Death: Implications of Roper v. Simmons for, anyform.org/doc/60817/a-slower-form-of-death–implications-of-roper-v.-simmons-for.
7. “Atkins v. Virginia 536 U.S. 304 (2002).” Justia Law, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/304/.
8. Bowers, William J.; Fleury-Steiner, Benjamin; Hans, Valerie P.; and Antonio, Michael E., “Too Young for the Death Penalty: An Empirical Examination of Community Conscience and the Juvenile Death Penalty from the Perspective of Capital Jurors” (2004). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. 403. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/403
9. Emens, Elizabeth F. “Aggravating Youth: Roper v Simmons and Age Discrimination.” The Supreme Court Review, vol. 2005, no. 1, 2005, pp. 51–102., doi:10.1086/655191.
10. Feld, Abolish the Juvenile Court: Youthfulness, Criminal Responsibilities, and Sentencing Policy, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 88, Issue 1. (1997)
11. HOWARD N. SNYDER & MELISSA SICKMUND, JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND VICTIMS: 2006 NATIONAL REPORT 125, 207 (2006); Stahl, supra note 36, at 1-2
12. Massey, Hillary J., Disposing of Children: The Eighth Amendment and Juvenile Life Without Parole After Roper. Boston College Law Review, Vol. 47, p. 1083, 2006. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=926758
13. Montgomery v. Louisiana, No. 14-280 (Jan. 25, 2016).
14 Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005). (n.d.). Retrieved October 20, 2017, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/.
foundations of law and society 