In 2004, Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death for first degree murder when he was seventeen years old (Myers, 2006). Simmons challenged his death sentence arguing that the standards of decency in American society had evolved to the point that a national consensus existed against executing a criminal for crimes he committed while under the age of eighteen, and that therefore his death sentence was cruel and unusual punishment which violated the Eighth Amendment (Myers, 2006). Simmons appealed his conviction through multiple state and federal courts until 2002. Each of his appeals was rejected.
Simmons relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in in Atkins v. Virginia which prohibits the execution of offenders that are considered to be
…show more content…
Supreme Court, the government argued that allowing a state court to overturn a Supreme Court decision by reviewing evolving standards would be dangerous, because state courts could just as easily decide that executions prohibited by the Supreme Court were now punishable due to a change in the beliefs of the American people (Roper v. Simmons, n.d.). This type of change could possibly allow state courts to authorize the death penalty for the mentally ill which go against a Supreme Court decision. It appears that the Missouri Supreme Court tried to evolve their state standards even though it went against the standards that were already in …show more content…
Supreme Court in March 1, 2005 held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid the execution of offenders who were under the age of eighteen when their crimes were committed. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority and stated that when a juvenile commits a heinous crime, the State can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity (Roper v. Simmons, n.d.). This opinion separates a certain class of people and excludes them from punishment according to our laws.
Reference
Myers, W. (2006). Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology; Roper v. Simmons: The Collision of National Consensus and Proportionality Review. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7240&context=jclc
Roper v. Simmons, (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 18, 2017 from
Seigal, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Weems v. United States (1910) set a judicial precedent for showing that punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed and allowed courts to decide what is “cruel and unusual”. Lower courts allowed the VIS and that use sometimes came under question. Thus the case was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court to review. In Booth v. Maryland (1987) and Gathers v. South Carolina (1989) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that VIS could potentially lead to harsher sentences and yet upon further review reconsider their stance on VIS and overturn their decisions and concluded that the Eight Amendment was not violated by victim Impact statements on the ground that such statements did not lead to cruel and unusual punish...
The sentencing of underage criminals has remained a logistical and moral issue in the world for a very long time. The issue is brought to our perspective in the documentary Making a Murderer and the audio podcast Serial. When trying to overcome this issue, we ask ourselves, “When should juveniles receive life sentences?” or “Should young inmates be housed with adults?” or “Was the Supreme Court right to make it illegal to sentence a minor to death?”. There are multiple answers to these questions, and it’s necessary to either take a moral or logical approach to the problem.
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
Our supreme court has been around for decades for the purpose of interpreting the law. Supreme court justices go through years of school and extensive work in order to receive the honorary position. The opinions, of supreme court justices, are highly respected and trusted. However, that does not mean that every decision that is made, is the right decision. Interpreting the law depends on the time period, current laws, morals and a list of other aspects of America’s society, at the time the law is being interpreted. Based on what the current law and morals were, I will dissect the best and worst supreme court decisions.
Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is entirely eliminating the use of the life without parole sentence for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the crime being charged.
Schmalleger, Frank, Criminal Justice A Brief Introduction, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Education Inc. , 2010, Page 387
A case in which brought a huge amount of attention to capital punishment is the Roper v. Simmons case (Reuters, 2017). The Roper v. Simmons case included a teen named, Christopher Simmons, Simmons planned and committed a murder at the age of seventeen. He was convicted and sentenced the death penalty at the age of eighteen. Simmons petitioned after his conviction that he was under the age of eighteen at the time of the crime, therefore he was still a juvenile. He related back to the Atkins v Virginia case indicating he was under eighteen and not fully mentally developed yet. In the Atkins case the sentence was violating the eighth amendment valid to the states done by the fourteenth amendment, which states the prohibition of a mentally retarded
The Supreme Court felt that the death penalty in his case was constitutional and that the eighth amendment was not violated because there was significant evidence of “aggravating circumstances” where it was necessary to impose the death penalty. Gregg disagreed and said the death penalty itself is unconstitutional and that it violated the eight (cruel and unusual punishment) and fourteenth (civil rights) amendment. The court heard his case in 1976 and
In the article On Punishment and Teen Killers by Jenkins, sadly brings to our attention that kids are sometimes responsible for unimaginable crimes, in 1990 in a suburban Chicago neighborhood a teenager murdered a women, her husband, and her unborn child, as she begged for the life of her unborn child he shot her and later reported to a close friend that it was a “thrill kill”, that he just simply wanted to see what it felt like to shoot someone. A major recent issue being debated is whether or not we have the right to sentence Juveniles who commit heinous crimes to life in adult penitentiaries without parole. I strongly believe and agree with the law that states adolescents who commit these heinous crimes should be tried as adults and sentenced as adults, however I don’t believe they should be sentenced to life without parole. I chose this position because I believe that these young adults in no way should be excused for their actions and need to face the severe consequences of their actions. Although on the other hand I believe change is possible and that prison could be rehabilitating and that parole should be offered.
Schmalleger, F. (2009), Prentice Hall, Publication. Criminal Justice Today: An introductory Text for the 21st century
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27, 343-360. http://ccj.sagepub.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/content/27/3/342
During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes. ”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment.
Lee Dionne, (2008). Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology: Let the Punishment Fit the Crime, vol. 99. Retrieved from: 3dhttp://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7318&context=jclc.
Legal Information Institute. (2010, August 9). Retrieved February 17, 2012, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_law