Roper
v. Simmons: Conflicts with Uniformity
In Roper v. Simmons
(2005), the United States Supreme Court held that the execution of
individuals under the age of eighteen is prohibited by the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, regardless of the
crime committed. 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 through the Fourteenth
Amendment. In this particular case, the Court viewed the death penalty as
“cruel and unusual” when pertaining to juveniles, therefore prohibiting their
execution. However, I hold that the Court made the wrong decision by focusing
on juveniles as a whole and as an age group, rather than the crime committed by
an individual. Many details of this case heighten my belief that the Court
ruled incorrectly in their opinion. Some of the details that will be discussed
will include: the fact that the human brain experiences cognitive development
up until the age of twenty-five, the fact that the murder committed by Simmons
was aggravated to the fullest extent, and finally the fact that when compared
to legal precedent on the subject, Roper
doesn’t fit. With that being said, the restriction on the distribution of the
death penalty to juveniles cannot and should not be applied uniformly every
time. The Eighth Amendment is based on the precept that justice and punishment
should be “graduated and proportioned to the offense” (Roper v. Simmons, 2005). In my opinion, justice was not served in
this case due to the Court’s misconception of what constitutes a “juvenile”.
Firstly, although I believe that the death penalty should
not be inflicted upon minors under the age of fifteen, as stated in Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), there are
no major developmental or societal changes that occur in an individual
overnight between the ages of seventeen and eighteen. At least none that should
prevent a sixteen or seventeen year old from receiving the death penalty. Rather,
scientific data concerning brain development shows that the human brain
develops from back to front. The prefrontal cortex is in the very front of our
brain and is what allows us to rationally reason, as well as control our
emotional impulses (Lecture 02/23/12). However, the prefrontal cortex is what
develops last in the human brain, and doesn’t fully mature until the age of
twenty-five, and sometimes later. In Roper,
the Court based their decision on the fact that Simmons was a minor, and
only seventeen at the time he committed a capital offense. The Court stated
that Simmons was “easily influenced” and that he displayed a “lack of maturity
and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility”. The Court goes on to say that
the youth are more prone to “ill-considered actions” and irrational decisions
due to their age. While this may be true of Simmons, it is also true of every
other individual under the age of twenty-five. If Simmons was twenty-one, or
even eighteen at the time he committed murder, he would have been sentenced to
death. With that being said, why is it not permissible for persons over the age
of eighteen, yet under the age of twenty-five to use the same excuse that the
Court used for Simmons? According to the scientific data, the brain is still
developing at seventeen, as well as eighteen, so the Court should not have
imposed this age restriction for capital punishment. Therefore if Roper is valid, then a statue mandating
that no one under the age of twenty-five be subject to the death penalty should
be valid as well. Essentially, the Court used this scientific data to support a
societal definition of what constitutes a juvenile. Although eighteen is an age
which allows an individual to vote and smoke, and even gain personal freedoms
from their parents, it cannot be used as an appropriate age in which to deprive
those who are deserving from receiving the death penalty. The death penalty,
therefore, cannot be uniformly applied, especially to juveniles due to
differences in personal development of the prefrontal cortex. If a twenty-five
year old can be put to death for a capital offense, then according to
scientific data, so should a seventeen year old.
Secondly, I believe that the Court spent too much time
focusing on the defendant’s age rather than the crime he actually committed. In
his murder, Simmons demonstrated intent, premeditation, and committed robbery,
which are all aggravating circumstances when related to murder. In order for an
adult (living in a pro death penalty state) to receive the death penalty, they
must meet one of three “aggravating” circumstances as set forth in Gregg v. Georgia (1976). The three
aggravating circumstances are: premeditation and intent, coupling murder with
another felony, and committing particular acts considered especially “heinous”,
such as rape or torture (Gregg v.
Georgia, 1976). Simmons definitely demonstrated two of these aggravating
circumstances, and some could even argue that he fulfilled all three. He
committed pre-meditated murder with the intent to kill. By telling his friends
details of the crime before he even committed it, it is clear that Simmons
planned to kill. Simmons also committed another crime while committing murder,
which is the second aggravating circumstance. Not only did Simmons kill the
woman, he burglarized her home as well. Furthermore, although no evidence of
sexual assault was found, one could argue that the crime was particularly
heinous due to the fact that binding and other torture-esque materials were
used, such as duct tape and electrical wiring. In their opinion, the Court
firmly held that Simmons should not receive the death penalty due to his age,
not because of the crime he committed. As we saw earlier, Simmons’ age is not a
reliable factor when it comes to brain development, and should not have been so
heavily used by the Court. In my opinion Simmons demonstrated behavior too
drastic for an individual of his age. He met the aggravating circumstances
required to receive capital punishment and even told his friends he wouldn’t
receive the death penalty because he was a minor. Clearly he understood the law
and used his age as a crutch to avoid what he deserved, which was death. This
behavior is another reason why the death penalty cannot be uniformly applied to
minors. Society cannot afford to let people like Simmons escape justice based
on their age.
Lastly, capital punishment should not be off limits for
deserving minors due to the legal precedent that surrounds the issue. In Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), the Court
ruled that the imposition of the death penalty on minors aged sixteen and
seventeen does not violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
regardless of state statutory provisions. This case was coupled with Wilkins v. Missouri (1989). Stanford,
seventeen at the time of his murder not only killed but also sodomized and
robbed his victim. Wilkins, only sixteen at the time he committed murder, stabbed
a convenience store clerk while concealing a weapon which constitutes as
criminal action. Both young adults received the death penalty because they were
considered a threat to society, and it was determined that juvenile
rehabilitation would not suffice (Stanford
v. Kentucky, 1989). In the Court’s opinion, led by Justice Scalia, it was
stated that the death sentence was not contrary to “the evolving standards of
decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” (Stanford v. Kentucky, 1989). This brings us to Simmons. His fate
was decided only 16 years later, yet yielded extremely different results.
Justice Kennedy, using the “national consensus” position, stated that death
sentences given to underage minors were “cruel and unusual” and therefore
violated the Eighth Amendment. He also pointed out that the states were too
inconsistent when it came to applicability and the execution of minors (Roper v. Simmons, 2005). Although uneven
distribution may be a genuine problem, it is also a problem for of-age adults
who receive the death penalty. An adult can murder in one state and get a death
sentence, yet murder in another and receive life in prison. Therefore, I find
Justice Kennedy’s opinion on this matter irrelevant, since adults are not
afforded the same exclusion. Most cases that have deep roots in the past, and
legal precedent behind them are only traditionally overturned due to evolving
histories and societal customs. Yet this case doesn’t quite fit that mold.
Simmons behavior was no different than the behavior of Stanford and Wilkins.
All three of them demonstrated a high cognitive level of planning and
execution, and all three committed violent, heinous crimes. However, only two
received the death penalty. The only logical explanation for this reversal is
the changing attitude of the Court itself overtime. The Court, although supposedly
counter-majoritarian, paid more attention to public opinion in this case. The
only problem I have with this is the fact that only sixteen years exist between
these cases. Could public opinion really have changed that much? Enough to
warrant a reversal by the United States Supreme Court? I don’t think so.
Justice Scalia, leading the majority opinion in Stanford cited Gregg v.
Georgia (1976) by stating that: "We discern neither a historical nor a
modern societal consensus forbidding the imposition of capital punishment on
any person who murders at 16 or 17 years of age. Accordingly, we conclude that
such punishment does not offend the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against
cruel and unusual punishment. [...] and to mean that as the dissent means […]
that it is for us to judge, not on the basis of what we perceive the Eighth
Amendment originally prohibited, or on the basis of what we perceive the
society through its democratic processes now overwhelmingly disapproves, but on
the basis of what we think "proportionate" and "measurably
contributory to acceptable goals of punishment" -- to say and mean that,
is to replace judges of the law with a committee of philosopher-kings."
This deduction of logic and law does not exist in Roper. To me, this clearly shows that the Court got it wrong in Roper, due to the fact that they put
themselves in a position in which to deny juveniles of justice, making them
what Scalia feared them to become, which are philosophers. Furthermore, statistics have shown that crime
among young adults has increased 168%, and that 10% of all homicides are
committed by minors under the age of eighteen (Regan). With that being said,
the punishments against minors should have gotten more strict, or at least left
open to the availability of the death sentence. In short, when you stack Roper up against Stanford and Wilkins, it
just doesn’t add up. With that being said, the death penalty should be
available for minors who commit the ultimate crime, aggravated murder. It goes
against precedent and scientific data to uniformly deny every minor the
possibility of receiving the death penalty.
Based on the scientific data and legal precedent
presented here, it is clear that there is no way for justice to be served if
the death penalty is unavailable to minors. Not all minors should receive the
death penalty for crimes, or even murders they commit. However, it should be
available and used for minors that commit heinous, aggravated murders. For some
juveniles, rehabilitation does not suffice and they need to be punished to the
full extent of the law. The reasons that the Court used to back up their
opinion are invalid. Yes, young adults are still developing their reasoning and
emotional skills, however, so are adults, all the way up to age twenty-five. If
the Court is going to make exceptions for minors based on their developing
brain, they should do the same for middle-aged adults. I hold that the death
penalty is not “cruel and unusual” when pertaining to minors and therefore does
not violate the Eighth Amendment, when applied sparingly, not uniformly. We
cannot place all minors into one big melting pot and punish everyone in the
same way. Some minors, like Simmons and Stanford, require special attention and
must answer to the call of justice, regardless of their age. With that being
said, the distribution of capital punishment upon minors should not be uniform.
It should be distributed on a case-by-case basis in order to protect the
integrity of society, as well as to protect it from dangerous juveniles.
No comments:
Post a Comment