Roper v. Simmons
Introduction
Regulations, ideas, and opinions change over time, and law is no exception. Certain rulings and penalties have come to be seen as less acceptable in modern times than they once were. One such penalty is the death penalty, the administration of which is one of the most controversial in the entirety of the judicial system. In the past, it was administered more frequently, but its use is more restricted in the modern day. In 2005, the ruling in the case of Roper v. Simmons was an instance of the change in times.
Facts
Christopher Simmons planned and committed the murder of Shirley Nite Crook on September 9, 1993, when he was only 17 years old. He did it with the help of two friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer. They broke into Ms. Crook’s house, bound and tied her hands and legs, kidnapped her, and drove her to a state park. Once there, they threw her off a bridge and she drowned in the river below. Simmons was tried, confessed to, and was found guilty of capital murder, kidnapping, burglary, and stealing in Jefferson County, Missouri in 1994. The state requested the death penalty and the jury recommended it.
Legal Background
In 1997, Simmons appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, declaring that his confession was involuntary and pushed by the media. He also argued that the counsel for his trial was poorly chosen and that he had “received ineffective counsel.” This, however, did not provide the Missouri Court with enough to overturn his sentencing, and Simmons’s conviction was upheld, along with his death penalty. Simmons then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in U.S. Federal Court, which was denied.
Following the 2002 Supreme Court decision in Atkins v. Virginia, the Missouri Supreme Court decided to reconsider Simmons’s case. The Missouri Court used the Atkins ruling as a reason to set aside Stanford v. Kentucky, a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision which had held that it was constitutional to execute a minor. The Missouri Supreme Court decided 6-3 against the administration of the death penalty for a minor, arguing that the opinions and ideas of 1989 were no longer the same in 2003.
Holding & Reasoning
The Supreme Court upheld the Missouri Supreme Court decision. The Court reasoned that as societal standards on the death penalty changed, so should the way in which the Court rules on its constitutionality. The Court also reasoned that as such, the death penalty for minors is now unreasonable. The death penalty for minors was now illegal in a majority of states, and per the ruling in Atkins, the Court found it to be unconstitutional nationwide. Finally, the Court relied on non-binding international opinion of the death penalty for minors to support its decision.
Concurring, Justice Stevens wrote: “The evolving standards of decency that have driven our construction of this critically important part of the Bill of Rights foreclose any such reading of the [Eighth] Amendment.” The Eighth Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Justice O’Connor, however, dissented and said this on the subject of age and maturity: “[T]he Court has adduced no evidence impeaching the seemingly reasonable conclusion reached by many state legislatures: that at least some 17- year-old murderers are sufficiently mature to deserve the death penalty in an appropriate case.”
Analysis
The Court’s decision is one that may never be unanimously agreed upon. Both the concurring and dissenting Justices raised strong points for their arguments. Justice Kennedy’s argument relies on the Eighth Amendment, deeming that the execution of a minor is “cruel and unusual” punishment. Justice O’Connor’s argument then questions what defines a minor: is it age or maturity? If Simmons had been eighteen when he committed the crime (only nine months later), can we assume that he would have been sufficiently more mature to merit the death penalty? Both of these points hold validity, but they do not focus on the entire base of the case: the death penalty itself.
As previously mentioned, Justice Kennedy’s argument revolves around the Eighth Amendment and this idea of “cruel and unusual” punishment, but shouldn't that reasoning also be applied to the entire idea of the death penalty? One must question the morality of ending another human’s life, no matter the magnitude of the crimes they committed. U.S. states have slowly phased out capital punishment in the last twenty years, with the number of states administering it dropping from 38 to 27. The United States has evidently begun to impose stronger restrictions and sanctions in general on what is deemed just and unjust, human and humane. We can see it in our federal government, our state governments, and the entirety of the American people. In the 10 years preceding the case, only three states executed people for crimes committed as juveniles, leading to the decision in Roper v. Simmons. The United Nations passed a moratorium on the death penalty that was passed 121 to 35, with 32 abstentions. The U.S. was one of the UN member states that voted against the resolution, along with China, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. This proves the death penalty’s termination is imminent, rendering it an inhumane and cruel form of punishment that should not be administered in the United States and internationally. The decision in Roper v. Simmons did not go far enough.
The question of maturity is also an important one. However, there are other ways, beside those outlined by the Justices, of handling and measuring one’s maturity. In the Netherlands, for example, juvenile criminal law is applicable for those between 12-18 years of age. However, those who committed the crime between the ages of 16-18 are examined by behavioral experts to determine their maturity. If they are deemed mature enough, they can be charged and sentenced as adults. This could be an alternative to the current approach in the United States.