Roper v. Simmons

No. 03-633 (U.S. March 1, 2005); Clearinghouse Number: 55786

Description

U.S. Supreme Court Bars Imposition of Death Penalty on Juveniles

Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under 18 when their crimes were committed. At 17, respondent planned and committed a capital murder. After he turned 18, he was sentenced to death. On appeal, respondent argued that the Court's reasoning in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, established that the U.S. Constitution prohibited the execution of a juvenile who was under 18 when he committed his crime. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed and set aside respondent's death sentence in favor of life imprisonment without eligibility for release. Affirming, the U.S. Supreme Court held both objective indicia of consensus, as expressed in particular by the enactments of state legislatures that had addressed the question, and the Court's own determination in the exercise of its independent judgment, demonstrated that the death penalty was a disproportionate punishment for juveniles. The Court noted that the juvenile death penalty had been rejected in the majority of the states and was infrequently used even where it remained on the books. The Court held that the consistent trend toward abolition of the practice was sufficient evidence that today society viewed juveniles as categorically less culpable than the average criminal. The Court found three general differences between juvenile and adult offenders: (1) juveniles' susceptibility to immature and irresponsible behavior; (2) juveniles' vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings; and (3) juveniles' still struggling to define their identities, making it less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile was evidence of irretrievably depraved character. The Court held that, once juveniles' diminished culpability was recognized, evidently neither of the two penological justifications for the death penalty—retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders—was adequate for imposing that penalty on juveniles. The Court noted the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Amici curiae represented by Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, Christopher Slobogin, Center on Children and Families, Fredric G. Levin College of Law, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117625, Gainesville, FL 32601 (352.392.9001); Marsha L. Levick, Lourdes M. Rosado, Nina W. Chernoff, Juvenile Law Center, 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215.625.0551); Michael C. Small, Edward P. Lazarus, Jeffrey P. Kehne, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld, 2029 Century Park E., Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310.229.1000); Steven A. Drizin, Northwestern University School of Law, Bluhm Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center, 350 E. Superior St., Chicago, IL 60611 (312.503.8576).
Docket Date
2005-03-01 06:00:00+00:00