The eighth amendment holds that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. This amendment is applicable to the states via the fourteenth amendment. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the constitutional question that arises involves the death penalty and its administration to minors, in accordance with the eighth amendment. The Court held that persons under the age of eighteen were not subject to capital punishment, regardless of the crime committed. The Court viewed the death penalty as “cruel and unusual” when pertaining to juveniles, which in turn violated the eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I however hold that the restriction on the distribution of the death penalty to minors cannot and should not be applied uniformly every time.
Although I believe that the death penalty should not be inflicted upon minors under the age of fifteen, there are no major developmental or societal change that occurs overnight between the ages of seventeen and eighteen that should exclude someone from receiving the death penalty. Rather, I would argue that if Roper is valid, then a statute mandating that no one under the age of twenty-five be subject to capital punishment should be valid as well. It has been shown that cognitive development can extend into a person’s mid-twenties and does not just stop once someone reaches what is termed to be “adulthood”.
In the Court’s opinion, Justice Kennedy paid too much attention to the defendant’s age, rather than the severity of the crime committed. Simmons, only seventeen at the time he committed murder, demonstrated intent, premeditation and committed robbery, which are all aggravating circumstances when related to murder. Essentially, the Court was able to dismiss Simmons as a “juvenile” because they used scientific data concerning developing “minors” to support a societal definition of what constitutes a “juvenile”. This worked in favor of Simmons.
Had Simmons been eighteen when he committed the same exact murder, he would have been subject to the death penalty. In order to receive the death penalty, one must not only murder another individual, but must also meet one of three “aggravating” circumstances, as set forth in Gregg v. Georgia (1976). Simmons demonstrated intent through premeditation (by telling his friends details of the crime before he committed it), as well as coupling burglary with murder. One could even potentially argue that the murder was especially “heinous” due to the fact that duct tape, binding materials, and other torture-esque materials were used, but I will not take it that far. In their reasoning, the Court stated that Simmons should not be given the death penalty because he possessed premature reasoning and maturity skills, and also because he was irresponsible and “easily influenced”. Although this may be true of typical “juveniles”, Simmons displayed original intent in that the original idea to kill with the intent to burglarize was entirely his own, and he was the one who influenced his friends, who joined him in the crime.
In conclusion, I would argue that although Simmons was only seventeen when he committed murder, he demonstrated a higher level of thinking and cognition, which is typical of adults. He specifically planned and acted on murder through his own processes, and took it one step further by aggravating the situation through robbery. Simmons sticks out as troubled among his peers. With that being said, death penalty restrictions on minors should not be uniformly enforced due to the fact that development can happen differently per individual, and “minors” by definition, such as Simmons, have the capability of committing adult like crimes despite their age. In my opinion, the Court got it wrong by focusing on juveniles as a whole, rather than the crime committed by a juvenile.
**submitted for LAW389.
No comments:
Post a Comment