The case of Roper vs. Simmons is a case that involved the issuance of a ruling by the United States Supreme Court holding and arguing that imposing capital punishment on minors was unconstitutional. The case of Roper vs. Simmons had the punishment extents of juveniles involved in murder cases lowered contrary to an earlier strict ruling in cases involving minors. For example, in previous years, the Supreme Court issued stern decisions on cases such as Stanford vs. Kentucky case of 1989.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court went ahead and overturned statutes in 25 states lowering penalties on minors. Also, various judges extended numerous dissents concerning the case. Besides, the case ruling had several implications on other preceding cases. This paper discusses the Roper vs. Simmons case decided by the United States Federal Government through the Supreme Court showing the background of the case, the court opinion, dissents, and the implications on other cases.
Background of the Case
The Roper vs. Simmons case took place in Missouri in 1993 with the case however having an ultimate decision in 2004 by the United States Supreme Court. The case involved Christopher Simmons, aged 17, at the time the incident contributing to the case ensued. According to the plan held up by Simmons, he involved two of his friends, Tessmer, and Benjamin. The strategy included committing murder and burglary by breaking into the victim's residence, holding the victim custody, and killing the victim by throwing her off a bridge. However, Tessmer, one friend of Simmons withdrew from the plan leaving Simmons and Benjamin to carry on with the strategy before the day of the incident.
Both Simmons and Benjamin broke into the victim's residence, held her custody, and drove to a park where they tossed her off the bridge. Upon presenting the case for trial, overwhelming pieces of evidence were available to prove the guilt of the offenders, Simmons, and Benjamin. Firstly, Simmons himself agreed to commit the murder by presenting a videotape showing the events of the crime scene (Alford, 2005). Secondly, Tessmer, Simmons's friend who withdrew from the assassination plot, gave testimony that Simmons and Benjamin committed the murder of Mrs. Crook.
The Supreme Court decided that at such a young age, Simmons lacked sufficient intelligence hence a death sentence would be a discrimination sentence. The Supreme Court of Missouri concluded that due to the national consensus that disapproved the execution of minors, then Simmons was eligible for life incarceration without parole instead of execution since he was not age 18 yet. Simmons appealed since he was not yet 18 years and he had no criminal records. The court then presented the case to the Supreme Court of the United States for further hearing.
Opinions of the United States Supreme Court
The State of Missouri filed the case to the United States Supreme Court on October 13, 2004, for further ruling. The Supreme Court cited that capital punishment imposition on juveniles violated the Constitution since the Eight Amendment supported protection of young offenders against cruelty and unusual punishment (Alford, 2005). However, in previous years, the Supreme Court to some extent allowed for the execution of juveniles who committed capital offences. For instance, in the case of Stanford vs. Kentucky whose ruling took place in 1989, the judges upheld that there was a probability that juveniles would face capital punishment upon the commitment of a capital offence. The Supreme Court upheld that there was a possibility of executing mentally retarded offenders.
However, in 2002, the Supreme Court judges upheld that due to decency upon evolving standards, capital punishment on juveniles and the mentally depraved was unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States drawing evidence from scientific and sociological facts concluded that juveniles possessed the lack of maturity compared to the individuals 18 years and above (Kramers-Olen, 2015). The research carried out by Justice Kennedy showed nearly all types of reckless behaviours in the community involved the contribution of adolescents. The Court affirmed that when the ruling of the case took place, approximately 20 states had juvenile cases in progress, and only six states committed the execution of the minors.
Dissents
Justice Scalia presented a dissent seconded by Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor. The dissents questioned the fact that national consensus formed part of the state laws. The objections put forward a claim that during the period of the ruling, 18 out of 30 states banned capital punishment on juvenile offenders (Alford, 2005). Justice Scalia argued that the issue was not proving whether a national consensus mattered but whether execution of minors was cruel and unusual during ratification of the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, Justice Scalia objected the move by the court to accept guidelines from foreign laws to aid in interpretation of the constitution.
The dissent of Justice Scalia also opposed the purpose international law had in the interpretation of the Constitution in that the judiciary ought to rely on the national constitution to make legal decisions. Moreover, Scalia's dissent proved that the legislature possessed the right to offer constitutional amendments at the time standard of decency underwent evolvement and not the court. Scalia challenged the move by unelected lawyers to discriminate morality and imposition of moral values (Alford, 2005).
Implications of Roper vs. Simmons Case
The ruling made by the Supreme Court on Roper vs. Simmons case influenced several issues. Firstly, Roper vs. Simmons case affected the judgment of other murder cases that involved juveniles. For instance, the Supreme Court of the United States cancelled 72 cases committed by juveniles. A significant impact befell Texas and Alabama where 29 and 14 juveniles respectively escaped death sentences. Secondly, the ruling of Roper vs. Simmons influenced constitutional jurisprudence (Alford, 2005) whereby the courts allowed for the reinterpretation of past case decisions. The utilization of the national consensus concept helped in the interpretation of prior cases.
Various factors influenced the national consensus as per the case of Roper vs. Simmons. Firstly, the national consensus upheld in Roper vs. Simmons case affected behavioural studies. Secondly, the case paved the way for several research studies in the field of criminal law. The national consensus concept helped abolish capital punishment on minors in 30 states. Moreover, the ruling on Roper vs. Simmons case influenced the verdict in the murder case involving Lee Boyd of the state of Virginia who was guilty of murder in the sniper attacks in Belway but escaped capital punishment since he was a juvenile offender.
Conclusion
Roper vs. Simmons case involves the Supreme Court ruling that foresaw the abolishment of capital punishment on Simmons, a minor, during the occurrence of the murder of Shirley Crook. The Supreme Court judges argued that capital punishment on a juvenile was not appropriate since scientific and psychological evidence shows that a minor has the incomplete level of maturity. The age and impulsiveness of the offender did not allow him to face the charges earlier accorded to him by the first court forcing him to issue an appeal.
The Supreme Court issued Simmons a jail sentence without parole as the right punishment compared to execution considering his age. Various judges for instance Justice Scalia issued dissents concerning the case. Roper vs. Simmons case had several impacts on the ruling of other juvenile cases, for example, the case of Lee Boyd. All in all, the utilization of the national consensus by various states helped reduce capital punishments on minors.
Works Cited
Kramers-Olen, AL 2015, 'Neuroscience, moral development, criminal capacity, and the Child Justice Act: Justice or injustice?', South African Journal Of Psychology, 45, 4, pp. 466-479, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 May 2016.
Alford, RP 2005, 'Roper V. Simmons And Our Constitution In International Equipoise', UCLA Law Review, 53, 1, pp. 1-27, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 May 2016.
