evolving standards of decency

EVOLVING STANDARDS OF DECENCY

Source: Keenan, JP. 17 Jan. 2017.

"The Court recognized in that case that the words of the Amendment are not precise, and that their scope is not static. The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

-Trop v. Dulles, 1957

""A New Standard of Decency," the New York Times, 2010

As a society grows and changes, and more factual evidence is uncovered, it is only natural that the standards of ethicality in a society would also evolve. The juvenile death penalty was thought at one point to be perfectly acceptable, but as society's understanding of the undeveloped human brain changed, so did the attitude towards the juvenile death penalty.

"Viewing the case from that 18th-century perspective, however, means ignoring recent scientific evidence showing a fundamental difference between the minds of juveniles and adults."               

 - "A New Standard of Decency," the New York Times, 2010

“When the California Supreme Court ruled, in 1972, that the death penalty was unconstitutional, the Chief Justice, in his opinion, appealed to 'evolving standards of decency.'”

- David Garland, 2011

Greenhouse, Linda. "SUPREME COURT, 5-4, FORBIDS EXECUTION IN JUVENILE CRIME: RETREAT FROM '89 RULING, CITING 'EVOLVING STANDARDS,' AFFECTS 72 ON DEATH ROW." New York Times

“Furman’s attorneys famously linked the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments together to argue that the intrusion of the biopolitical politics of life into capital punishment… despite the statutory presence of the death penalty, capital punishment was itself contrary to ‘evolving standards of decency.'  The reason the death penalty persisted, they argued, was that it was so rarely imposed.”

- David Garland, 2011

“Psychologists can play a role in the juvenile death penalty debate in several ways. First, psychologists can continue to bring forth existing and new data on the limits of adolescent reasoning, judgment and decision-making. Second, psychologists and their various professional organizations can publish and submit well-articulated positions on the profession's view of the juvenile death penalty. Third, psychologists can produce new research results examining "evolving standards of decency."

- American Psychological Association, January 2004

“Ultimately the number and rate of states adopting or rejecting the death penalty under a variety of specific conditions forms the most important indicator of national consensus. The Supreme Court weighs heavily this indicator in constitutional analyses like those that it conducted in Atkins and in Roper. If psychological research can play a role in the states' deliberations about the appropriateness of the death penalty, it will add meaningfully to this important Fifth Amendment debate.”

- American Psychological Association, June 2005

"Given that 'evolving standards of decency' have played a central role in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence for at least a century, see Weems v. United States, this argument suggests the dissenting opinions in those cases more accurately describe the law today than does Justice Thomas’ rigid interpretation of the Amendment. Society changes. Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes. Punishments that did not seem cruel and unusual at one time may, in the light of reason and experience, be found cruel and unusual at a later time; unless we are to abandon the moral commitment embodied in the Eighth Amendment, proportionality review must never become effectively obsolete."                                                           

​​​​​​​- Justice Stevens, Concurrence, Graham v. Florida, 2009

Granlund, Dave. “Death Penalty and Pain.” 2019.

SAME QUESTION, DIFFERENT TIMES

Sixteen years after the decision of Stanford v. Kentucky that supported the juvenile death penalty, Roper v. Simmons decided against it. The difference in decision occurred primarly due to evolving standards of decency, considering that during those sixteen years new research was done that proved that the juvenile brain is not fully developed, therefore juveniles cannot be treated as adults. 

STANFORD V. KENTUCKY (1989)

"The Court noted that 22 of the 37 death penalty States permitted the death penalty for 16-year-old offenders, and, among these 37 States, 25 permitted it for 17-year-old offenders. These numbers, in the Court’s view, indicated there was no national consensus “sufficient to label a particular punishment cruel and unusual.”                                                                                           - Roper v. Simmons, referring to Stanford v. Kentucky

"The primary and most reliable evidence of national consensus -- the pattern of federal and state laws -- fails to meet petitioner's heavy burden of proving a settled consensus against the execution of 16- and 17-year-old offenders."       

- Justice Scalia, Court Opinion

"Stanford v. Kentucky." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-5765. Accessed 6 Jan. 2020.

ROPER V. SIMMONS (2005)

"30 States prohibit the juvenile death penalty, comprising 12 that have rejected the death penalty altogether and 18 that maintain it but, by express provision or judicial interpretation, exclude juveniles from its reach."

- Justice Kennedy, Opinion of the Court

"Since Stanford, six States have executed prisoners for crimes committed as juveniles. In the past 10 years, only three have done so: Okla- homa, Texas, and Virginia."

- Justice Kennedy, Opinion of the Court

"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 Kennedy, Opinion of the Court

"Roper v. Simmons." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633. Accessed 6 Jan. 2020.

THE DEATH PENALTY TODAY

MODERN CONTROVERSY AND LEGALITY