WASHINGTON (ABP) — The U.S. Supreme Court considered Oct. 13 whether or not giving the death penalty to offenders who are 16 or 17 at the time of their crimes qualifies as the kind of “cruel and unusual punishment” banned by the Constitution.
Justices heard oral arguments in Roper vs. Simmons (03-633), a case that originated in Missouri. In 1993, Christopher Simmons abducted Shirley Crook from her St. Louis-area home, bound her hands and feet and threw her from a bridge into the Meramec River. A coroner's investigation determined that Crook was alive when she hit the water and that she died of drowning. Simmons was 17 at the time he committed the crime.
A jury awarded him the death sentence.
But in a highly unusual move, a divided Missouri Supreme Court overruled Simmons' punishment, stating that the execution of those who were juveniles at the time they committed their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and capricious penalties.
The federal Supreme Court was presented with the same question in 1989, when they ruled that executions of 16- and 17-year-old offenders did not violate the Constitution.
However, since then, several more states have outlawed capital punishment for all minors. In such cases, courts often take into account whether there is an evolving consensus among the states on such standards.
Then, in 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins vs. Virginia that the execution of mentally retarded offenders is unconstitutional. The majority justices relied heavily on the evolving-state-consensus argument in their opinion. The Missouri Supreme Court used reasoning from that decision in overturning Simmons' sentence.
In oral arguments before the federal Supreme Court Oct. 12, the justices appeared closely divided on the question. Simmons' attorney, Seth Waxman, said the increasing number of states banning the juvenile death penalty points to an emerging national consensus — and the fact that virtually no other nation in the world allows such executions points to a broader international consensus.
“It is notable that we are literally alone in the world [in allowing states to execute juvenile offenders], even though 110 countries allow capital punishment,” he said. “The consensus here is so robust.”
Justice Antonin Scalia — one of the court's three most conservative members, each of whom have expressed disdain for using international standards in interpreting the Constitution — shot back at Waxman, “Most of [the world's other nations] also don't have trial by jury.”
In his argument and supporting briefs, Waxman argued recent scientific discoveries prove that adolescents — including the vast majority of 16- and 17-year-olds — are subject to the kinds of mood swings, pressures and influence from adults that make them less “morally culpable” for their criminal actions.
But Missouri Solicitor James Layton, arguing the state's case, said that is the sort of decision trial juries should make, rather than the federal courts. “Leave to jurors the responsibility of determining the culpability of individual defendants,” he said.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Layton why the state should draw the line for adulthood at 18 in other legal areas — such as being able to buy tobacco or to vote — but not the death penalty. “Why should it be that someone is death-eligible under the age of 18 but not be eligible to be a full member of the community?” she asked.
Layton said those decisions should be left to lawmakers. “The line is arbitrary,” he conceded, adding, “It's the kind of line legislators, not the court, should draw.”
The court's four left-leaning members — Ginsburg and justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer — have already said they oppose the execution of juvenile offenders. Meanwhile, the court's three most conservative members — Scalia along with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas — dissented strongly from the reasoning behind the 2002 mental-retardation decision.
Presumably, then, the case will turn on the court's two moderate “swing-vote” justices — Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. While O'Connor was uncharacteristically quiet during the Oct. 13 arguments, Kennedy asked several questions about international opinion on the subject.
“We have a pretty substantive demonstration that world opinion is against [the juvenile death penalty],” he said at one point to Layton. “Does that have a bearing on what is 'unusual' [punishment]?”
Several medical organizations as well as a host of religious and political leaders submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in favor of Simmons' case. They included briefs by the American Medical Association, the American Baptist Churches-USA, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and former President Jimmy Carter.
After the court's session, survivors of murder victims argued for and against the death penalty for juveniles. Alaska resident Bill Pelke, whose grandmother was murdered by a 15-year-old, said he did not support the juvenile death penalty. “I came to learn that the execution of Paula Cooper would not bring healing for the murder of my grandmother,” he said. “The execution of people who have committed crimes before the age of 18 is barbaric.”
But Texan Bill Green, whose son was murdered in 1998 by a 17-year-old offender, said teenage murderers must be held accountable. “You have this radical group that would claim a 17-year-old isn't responsible for anything,” he said. “When you have a son, or a daughter or a loved one, there's only a small amount of closure that comes to the family [when the offender is executed]. But there is closure.”
-30-