In 1993 Christopher Simmons, who was 17 at the time, during a house robbery decided to kill the elderly home owner after he noticed that she had seen his face. He tied her up in electrical cord and duct tape, drove her to a nearby bridge and threw her into the water below where she drowned. In 1997, Simmons’ trial ended with a guilty verdict and a sentence to death. On March 1, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) released their syllabus and opinion on the case of Roper v. Simmons, which is ruling over the constitutionality of sentencing juvenile offenders to death. To be exact, the case is asking whether the 8th amendment, specifically, deem the juvenile death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment, hinging on the evolving standards of decency (Trop v. Dulles, 1958).
The majority opinion of the Supreme Court, in the syllabus of Roper v. Simmons, hold that they “…forbid [the] imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed.” A Supreme Court’s holding is their absolute bottom line that must be followed, as precedent, in future cases. There are two arguments that, assuming they are truthful and valid, lead to this conclusion.
It seems to be the opinion of the Supreme Court that if the accused’s crime was not as morally reprehensible as others, they should not be executed. This is because the offender group in question are under the age of 18. Scientific and sociological studies tend to confirm, “[a] lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults and are more understandable among the young. These qualities often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions.” For clarification, “youth” in the previous sentence refers to those individuals that are under 18 years of age. Youths’ impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions are the reasons that they are not trusted with the privileges and responsibilities of an adult. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in 1988 said, “the reasons why juveniles are not trusted with the privileges and responsibilities of an adult also explain why their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.” Therefore, youths’ ill-considered decisions that lead to irresponsible actions are not as morally reprehensible than adults’ irresponsible actions. And because youths’ actions are not as morally reprehensible, they should not be forced to pay for their ill-considered action with their life.
With their second argument, the Supreme Court was able to say that the execution of under 18 year olds is bad and unacceptable. This is because around the nation, the majority of state governments either have law prohibiting the death penalty for offenders under the age of 18 or have not executed a juvenile in over 40 years. Because the majority of states either prohibit the executions or have not preformed them, this must mean that they believe the process or be bad and unacceptable. Furthermore, because the majority of the state governments in our nation believe something, they cannot be wrong. Therefore, because the majority of governments cannot be wrong in their belief that juvenile capital punishment is bad and unacceptable, it must be.
In nearly all Supreme Court syllabi, there is a majority opinion which is known as the “Opinion of the Court”, and a dissenting opinion. The following arguments against the majority opinion, that the Supreme Court should forbid the imposition of the death penalty to those under 18, are put forward by Justice O’Connor.
Justice O’Connor writes that the majority’s argument may not only be invalid, but it may be false. He also believes that there are specific cases in which an offender, even though under the age of 18, can make rational, well thought out decisions and be punished just as an adult capable of making rational decisions would be. First, Justice O’Connor points out that, in the majority’s first argument, the premises do not lead to the sweeping conclusion that they arrived at. The majority wrote, “[a] lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults…” Justice O’Connor points out that “it does not necessarily follow that all [juveniles] are incapable of the moral culpability that would justify the imposition of capital punishment…” To clarify, he is arguing that there is no evidence to suggest that juveniles “as a class are inherently incapable” of rational thought. This, necessarily, means that there may be juveniles that do have rational thought. Then, in direct contrast to the majority argument, some actions performed by a juvenile can be just as morally reprehensible as their adult counterparts. Therefore, the Supreme Court should not rule that all juveniles under the age of 18 are forbidden to be executed.
In my opinion, I disagree with the majority opinion for the reason presented by Justice O’Connor. I too, believe that there are 16 and 17 year olds that are capable of discerning what is acceptable and what is unacceptable or what is a good decision and what is a bad decision. In the trial of Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), a plurality of four Justices concluded that the United States would be unable to inflict capital punishment unto an offender for a crime committed before the age of 16. While I have not read the arguments for and against the decision to put the age at 16 in 1988, it seems like a more reasonable age because of the psychological state and mental capabilities of juveniles under 16. Furthermore, in 2014, out of 100,000 juvenile arrests only 2, by crime only, was even eligible to receive the death penalty. Justice O’Connor, elsewhere in his opinion states that juries, a panel of 12 people, would be able to discern the juvenile offenders that committed the crime out of immaturity and poor decision making from those juveniles that committed the same crime out of revenge, hatred, lack of empathy or material or emotional gain.