Alea Connolly
WRTC 301
Case Study #2
3/6/14
Part I.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
Issue: Does the imposition of the death penalty on crimes committed when the
offender was under the age of 18 years constitute as a violation of cruel and unusual
punishment under the 8th Amendment?
Facts: The defendant, Christopher Simmons, committed murder at the age of 17
and was sentenced to death. He filed a petition arguing for state post-conviction relief,
stating that U.S. Constitution Amendment 8th prohibited the execution of mentally
retarded persons as well as the execution of a juvenile under the age of 18 when the crime
was committed. Judicial review was granted under the Missouri Supreme Court.
Holding: Yes, the Missouri Supreme Court agreed, and set aside Simmon’s death
penalty in favor of life imprisonment. The Eight and Fourteenth Amendments hold that it
is forbidden to impose the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 at the
time the crime was committed.
Reasoning: Both Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) 492 U.S. 361 and 492 U.S. 937
held the precedent that stated The United States Supreme Court did not constitute the
imposition of the death penalty on offenders for murder committed at age 16 or 17 years
as cruel and unusual punishment, and did not view it as a violation of the Constitution’s
Eight Amendment. However, the court decided to review objective indicia of consensus
on juvenile capital punishment expressed through previous legislation. After reviewing
legislation, the court found that thirty states had prohibited the juvenile death penalty, and
even the twenty states that did not have specific prohibition on execution of minors
rarely, if ever, implemented such sentencing. Therefore, the court decided that the general
consensus of the American public views juveniles as less deserving of punishment for
wrongdoing. The Court believed that juveniles are less culpable due to the fact that they
lacked maturity, were more susceptible to negative influences, and had not fully
developed their character yet. Therefore, the Court decided that the Eight Amendment
forbids the imposition of the death penalty on defendants whom committed crimes under
the age of 18 years of age.
Concurrence: Both Justice Stevens and Ginsburg concurred with the ruling and
the Court’s interpretation of the Eight Amendment. They state that had the Amendment
been frozen, it would impose no impediment to the execution of a seven-year-old child.
The standards for human rights and decency have evolved dramatically and are extremely
important to the construction of the Bill of Rights.
Dissent: Justice O’Connor dissented the Court’s decision, stating that it created a
“categorical ruling forbidding the execution of any offender for any crime committed
before his 18th birthday.” O’Connor argued that at least some 17-year-old murderers are
mature enough to know what they are doing and right verses wrong. Also, the decision
does not take into account that some crimes committed by offenders under the age of 18
could be extremely cruel, inhumane, and deliberate and deserving of capital punishment.
Roberts v. Louisiana 428 U.S. 325 (1976)
Issue: Does the jury instructions under La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 814, 817
(1975) (which did not allow the jury to consider the facts surrounding the murder and the
defendant’s character) violate the U.S. Constitution’s Amendments 8 and 14?
Facts: The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for a killing that
occurred during an armed robbery and sentenced by the state court to death. The offender
petitioned that the new procedure for imposing the death penalty is unconstitutional and
violates the 8th and 14th amendment. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the Court’s
decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, and rejected the defendant’s petition.
Holding: The Court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case
because providing specific offenses for a death sentence was insufficient for a proper
decision to be made by the jury.
Reasoning: The legislation at the time mandates the imposition of the death
penalty under the five categories of homicide, including the killing during preparation of
an armed robbery. If the defendant is found guilty of first-degree murder, then capital
punishment is mandatory no matter what. The Jury was instructed on the crimes of firstdegree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter, and was aware of the
implementations of each sentencing. In the Jury trial, under the new statutes, the jury
found the defendant guilty of first-degree murder. The court stated that the long time use
and history of the mandatory death penalty statute proved to reflect societal views, and
the imposition of the death penalty did not constitute as cruel and unusual punishment in
all cases. However, five members of the court agreed that the mandatory imposition of
the death penalty under Louisiana’s statutes proved to be unconstitutional and violated
the 8th and 14th amendments because not all cases are the same and shouldn’t be treated
as such.
Concurrence: Both Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall concurred the ruling,
referring back their dissent in the Gregg v. Georgia.
Dissent: Justice White dissented the Court’s decision referring back to Furman v.
Georgia (1972) in which the new statutes were amended to provide four grades of
criminal homicide (and first-degree murder mandated capital punishment).
Part II.
In both cases, Roberts v. Louisiana and Roper v. Simmons, the defendants were
fighting for their sentencing of the death penalty to be over turned due to the violation of
the Constitution’s Eight and Fourteenth Amendments. Both offenders committed acts of
first-degree murder and stated that the death penalty, in their cases, constituted as cruel
and unusual punishment.
Although they were very similar, the context and reasoning behind the two cases
varied in multiple ways. The first case, Roper v. Simmons, was arguing that capital
punishment violated the constitution because the defendant was a minor and under the
age of 18 at the time the crime was committed. In the second case, Roberts v. Louisiana,
the defendant argued that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment because
the state of Louisiana’s statute mandates the imposition of capital punishment in the case
of first-degree murder without having reviewed the character of the offender and the
nature of the crime.
Both cases took place in different time periods, which I believe affected the
outcomes of the cases as well. In Roper v. Simmons, the Court was more lenient while
sentencing Simmons because of his age. Had the Amendment been frozen, they said, it
would have allowed for the death penalty to be imposed on any minor. Because of society
becoming more concerned with human rights and the rights of juveniles, the Court
decided to rule that it was cruel and unusual punishment to inflict the death penalty on a
person who committed a crime before the age of 18. I believe this is also due to
development in research and the study of phycology. The public is now more aware of
the development of the brain and child development as well. The Court ruled the way
they did because they realized that minors are not as mature as adults and have not fully
developed their character and decision making skills yet. The ruling also stated that
juveniles are more susceptible to peer pressure and negative influences. The Roberts v.
Louisiana case took place in 1976, therefore the old statutes of the state of Louisiana may
not have been as concerned with the differences of individual cases.
Capital punishment is the most severe type of punishment and therefore the 8th
and 14th amendments need to be carefully considered during sentencing. There is a
question of whether it is ethical or not to place all crimes under the same statute. States
must give precise and narrow definitions of the factors that would constitute for the
implementation of capital punishment in certain cases. In the case of Roberts v.
Louisiana, the state of Louisiana had the same punishment for convicted first-degree
murderers. Different cases need to factor in the differences in the offender’s personalities
and characteristics for them to sentence them fairly. For instance, I believe a person who
committed pre meditated murder (first degree) due to years of abuse from the victim and
having no previous criminal record should not necessarily receive the death penalty,
whereas someone who committed a heinous murder involving a completely innocent
person should most definitely deserve the death penalty. It is simply not ethical to
broadly categorize a type of murderer. I believe it is especially unjust to not allow the
jury to review the defendant’s character before sentencing as well, no matter what the
crime.
In the case of Roger v. Simmons, the ethical question of whether or not minors
under the age of 18 should be tried as an adult or not is brought into play. Some people
believe that once you turn 18 you should be tried as an adult, regardless of the time the
crime was committed. Many people disagree, stating that as adolescents they are not fully
aware of the implications of their actions, and are easily persuaded to do idiotic things.
Because the death penalty is by far the greatest punishment awarded by the state, crimes
involving young adults, even heinous ones, need to be taken into special consideration. In
this particular case, Simmons clearly premeditated the act of murder and claimed that he
could “get away with it” because he was underage. I believe that he probably thought he
wouldn’t be sentenced to jail because of his actions, I’m not even sure that the death
penalty came to mind when he broke into the victims home that night. The jury also
heard from the defendant’s family, and was shown that he has some sort of “character”
because he always cared for his two younger siblings. The empathy created for the
defendant probably helped a great deal in this case, considering the crime was so terrible.
However, the ruling of this case did not just change Simmon’s life, but it had affected
others as well. It was reported that nearly a dozen other death row inmates from the state
of Texas who had committed their crimes at the age of 17 were commuted from their
sentencing.