Roper Vs Simmons Case Study

Running Head: ROPER V. SIMMONS: EXPLORING THE 2005 LANDMARK DECISION

Roper v. Simmons: Exploring the 2005 Landmark Decision

The Case The landmark Supreme Court decision, Roper v. Simmons, started with a horrific crime in Missouri. A very disturbed seventeen year old named Christopher Simmons planned and carried out the murder of Shirley Crook. A few days prior to the murder Simmons had discussed the plan with a friend and insisted that they would get away with the crime simply because they were minors at the time. The two carried out the crime by removing the woman from her house, binding her hands and feet, and covering her entire face with duct tape. They then took Mrs. Crook to a bridge that
Simmons was written by Justice Kennedy, and was joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Souter. Their opinion was guided by the courts then recent decision in Atkins v. Virginia on capital punishment of the mentally retarded, as well as their decision from 1989 in the case of Stanford v. Kentucky on capital punishment of juveniles age 16 and older. Justice Kennedy explained that a national consensus had formed in opposition to sentencing offenders to death who were under eighteen years old at the time of their offense (Counsel of Record, 2005). This claim was supported by observations that eighteen states did not allow capital punishment for juveniles, and twelve states had banished capital punishment entirely. Also noted was the fact that not a single state had lowered its age of execution below age eighteen since the 1989 decision of Stanford v. Kentucky, and five other states had actually raised their age of execution to at least age eighteen. Finally, in states that still allowed for juvenile execution, its practice was extremely unusual (Counsel of Record, 2005). Justice Kennedy elaborated on the consensus against using the death penalty for minors by noting that it grew much slower than the consensus found in Atkins v. Virginia. He explained that the rate was not as important as the consistency of the direction of change (Counsel of Record, 2005). All of this established an understanding that standards had evolved
It was noted that while juveniles are capable of committing truly heinous crimes, they are not fully culpable for three main reasons. The first reason discussed was that juveniles under the age of eighteen lack the maturity and responsibility that adults have attained. This shortcoming causes decisions and subsequent actions to be poorly thought out. Basically, juveniles are not responsible decision makers. This idea was supported by the fact that most states do not allow minors to vote, do jury duty, or get married without consent. The second rationale for why juveniles are less culpable than adults dealt with environment. It was suggested that juveniles lack control over their environment. They do not have the ability to remove themselves from an environment that encourages delinquency. Finally, juveniles are less culpable because they are still developing a sense of self identity. This suggests that behaviors exhibited now may not be part of their character in five or ten years, allowing for recovery. The majority then argued that the same reasoning they used in Stanford v. Kentucky applied to Roper v. Simmons, and that the eighth amendment did not allow for the execution of people under age eighteen due to lesser culpability (Counsel of Record,