case connections case connections

CASE CONNECTIONS

Source: Walsh, Susan. AP, 25 Apr. 2019.


The result of Roper v. Simmons and the progress that followed was not a spontaneous break in the barrier by the Supreme Court. Rather, it was the culmination of steady change in national sentiment with regard to moral issues. 
​​​​​​​

EVOLVING STANDARDS FOR THE MENTALLY DISABLED

In many ways, the Court's acknowledgment of evolving standards of decency in Atkins paved the way to a change in the federal stance on capital punishment for minors.

PENRY v. LYNAUGH, 1989

"In 1988, when Congress enacted legislation reinstating the federal death penalty, it expressly provided that a "sentence of death shall not be carried out upon a person who is mentally retarded."In 1989, Maryland enacted a similar prohibition. It was in that year that we decided Penry, and concluded that those two state enactments, "even when added to the 14 States that have rejected capital punishment completely, do not provide sufficient evidence at present of a national consensus.'"

-Justice John Paul Stevens, Opinion of the Court, Atkins v. Virginia, referring to Penry v. Lynaugh

"In sum, mental retardation is a factor that may well lessen a defendant's culpability for a capital offense. But we cannot conclude today that the Eighth Amendment precludes the execution of any mentally retarded person of Penry's ability convicted of a capital offense simply by virtue of his or her mental retardation alone."

-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Opinion of the Court.

ATKINS v. VIRGINIA, 2002

“The U.S Supreme Court chose to review the case because the 1989 precedent on which the Virginia Supreme Court based its reasoning was arguably outdated. Since that time, a consensus had developed among state legislatures that the death penalty was not appropriate for mentally retarded individuals.”

"Much has changed since then. Responding to the national attention received by the Bowden execution and our decision in Penry, state legislatures across the country began to address the issue... It is not so much the number of these States that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of change."

"...death is not a suitable punishment for a mentally retarded criminal [...] Construing and applying the Eighth Amendment in the light of our "evolving standards of decency," we therefore conclude that such punishment is excessive and that the Constitution "places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take the life" of a mentally retarded offender."

-Justice John Paul Stevens, Opinion of the Court.

“Atkins v. Virginia.” Washington Journal, C-Span, 2002​​​​​​​

BEFORE AND AFTER ROPER V. SIMMONS

In the same way that Thompson v. Oklahoma paved the way for Roper v. Simmons, Roper played a role in the decisions made in Miller v. Alabama. These three cases in conjunction show a timeline of evolving moral standards within the United States, with each ruling breaking a previous barrier.

THOMPSON v. OKLAHOMA, 1988

"Question: Would the execution of a 15 year old violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments"?"

"The most salient statistic that bears on this case is that every single American legislature that has expressly set a minimum age for capital punishment has set that age at 16 or above.  When one adds these 18 States to the 14 that have rejected capital punishment completely, it appears that almost two-thirds of the state legislatures have definitely concluded that no 15-year-old should be exposed to the threat of execution."

-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Opinion of the Court

"Thompson v. Oklahoma." Oyez.

MILLER v. ALABAMA, 2012

"Question: Does the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year-old child violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?"

"Roper, and our individualized sentencing decisions make clear that a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the harshest possible penalty for juveniles. By requiring that all children convicted of homicide receive lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole, regardless of their age and age-related characteristics and the nature of their crimes, the mandatory sentencing schemes before us violate this principle of proportionality, and so the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment."

-Justice Elena Kagan, Opinion of the Court

"Miller v. Alabama." Oyez.

UNSUCCESSFUL VS. ACCEPTABLE

Furman v. Georgia, which struck all death penalty schemes in the United States, was overturned by Gregg v. Georgia, only 4 years after the initial ruling. Roper v. Simmons, on the other hand, has not been challenged since its 2005 ruling. This difference in success may be attributed to differing levels of national consensus surrounding capital punishment itself and capital punishment specifically for juvenile offenders.

"Greenhouse, Linda. 'Death Penalty is Renounced by Blackmun.' The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Feb. 1994.

FURMAN V. GEORGIA, 1972

"Question: Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in [these cases] constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?"

"In sum, the punishment of death is inconsistent with all four principles: death is an unusually severe and degrading punishment; there is a strong probability that it is inflicted arbitrarily; its rejection by contemporary society is virtually total; and there is no reason to believe that it serves any penal purpose more effectively than the less severe punishment of imprisonment. The function of these principles is to enable a court to determine whether a punishment comports with human dignity. Death, quite simply, does not."

-​​​​​​​Justice William Douglas, Opinion of the Court

"While the jury is permitted to consider any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, it must find and identify at least one statutory aggravating factor before it may impose a penalty of death...we hold that the statutory system under which Gregg was sentenced to death does not violate the Constitution."

-Justice Potter Stewart, Opinion of the Court, Gregg v. Georgia, 1976

ROPER V SIMMONS, 2005

"Question: Does the execution of minors violate the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" found in the Eighth Amendment and applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment?"

"The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. The judgment of the Missouri Supreme Court setting aside the sentence of death imposed upon Christopher Simmons is affirmed."

-Justice Anthony Kennedy, Opinion of the Court.

"Public opinion in the United States increasingly opposes the execution of juvenile offenders. According to a 2003 Harris Poll, 69 percent of the people polled opposed the death penalty for juveniles; only 22 percent supported the execution of juvenile offenders, while 5 percent offered no opinion. Meanwhile, the juvenile death penalty disproportionately affects children of color, as it is subject to the same racial disparities as have been discovered throughout the use of capital punishment."

-ACLU, "Juveniles and the Death Penalty," 2005