星空无限传媒app

September 13, 2005

Constitution Day: Should Juvenile Offenders Be Subject to the Death Penalty?

JUVENILES 聯LOSE聰 ELIGIBILITY FOR
DEATH PENALTY IN UNITED STATES
By Barry Anderson, LEJA

Prior to March 2005, the United States was one of two countries in the world, which had laws that allowed juveniles to be executed (a juvenile being a child under the age of 18). The standard in the United States was basically that if a juvenile was 16 or 17, it was constitutional to execute the juvenile. The US Supreme Court had, somewhat mysteriously, drawn a 聯line in the sand聰 where it held that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a 15 year old who committed a heinous crime, but it was not cruel and unusual punishment at age 16 and 17.

In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons, a Missouri case decided in March of 2005, held that the execution of any juvenile (under 18 years of age when offending) was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments. The majority stated that pursuant to 聯the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society聰, all juvenile executions are cruel and unusual punishment! The Court also held that juveniles are categorically less culpable than the average criminal.

The Court in Roper relies on its 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia, another 5-4 decision, which held that the execution of a mentally retarded person was cruel and unusual punishment. Prior to that decision, there was no constitutional prohibition in the United States against executing a mentally retarded or mentally handicapped offender. The Court in Adkins also used that 聯evolving standards聰 argument noting the mental and experiential limitations of a mentally retarded person would make them less culpable than the average criminal. It should be noted that the Court in that case did not define the boundaries of mental retardation. Apparently that is left that to the individual state jurisdictions to determine.

From a precedent standpoint, it could be argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had no choice but to declare the execution of juveniles as unconstitutional after looking at and comparing its reasoning in Adkins. However, Justice Breyer was in the minority in Adkins and the majority in Roper and Justice O聮Connor was in the minority in Roper and the majority in Adkins . Predictability is not always a 聯strong suit聰 in the Supreme Court.

Both decisions are very enlightening and interesting to read. They both illustrate how the U.S. Supreme Court is struggling with smaller issues within the death penalty itself. In this author聮s opinion, the United States Supreme Court will, within several years, have to face that larger issue of the death penalty itself, as more and more states, like Illinois, put all executions on moratorium.


Posted By: Darcie Shinberger, University Relations
Phone: (309) 298-1993 * Fax: (309) 298-1606