Exact Approximations

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Roper v. Simmons, It's About Time.

Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional to execute those who were under 18 at the time of a crime's commission. This case marks a shift in the Supreme Court's willingness to contemplate what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Previously, in Stanford v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held (in plurality) that the Constitution's bar against cruel and unusual punishment did not categorically prohibit the execution of minors. Stanford also noted that the Court had no place in bringing its own independent judgment to this determination. Roper shifts this mindset.

This was a particularly heinous crime. Simmons planned to murder, and noted to his friends that they would get away with it because they were minors. He and his friend burglarized an old woman, tied her up, wrapped duct tape around her face, and threw her into a Missouri river, where she drowned. Simmons was bragging about it the next day.

Simmons was found guilty, after a trial where no defense witnesses were called (what's up with that?) During the penalty phase, the defense noted Simmons' age, in an attempt to get the jury to consider this a mitigating factor. In response, the prosecutor said "Think about age. Seventeen years old. Isn't that scary? Doesn't that scare you? Mitigating? Quite the contrary I submit. Quite the contrary."

What does that mean? If a person is sooo evil that they commit a crime when young, then they must be really bad and extra deserving of death? Well then, time to rewrite some laws my friends, and overhaul the entire juvenile justice system to make it impose even harsher sentences than those given to adults (opposed to current status, which seems to be moving towards equating youth and adult culpability). Needless to say, Simmons got the death penalty.

Anyhow, post-penalty, sometime during the appeals flurry, the Supreme Court came down with a little decision called Atkins v. Virginia, which held unconstitutional the execution of the mentally retarded (we still need a better understanding of what constitutes mental retardation). Simmons' attorneys argued that the reasoning in Atkins also supported his argument that the constitution prohibits the execution of those under 18. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed (!), and set aside the sentence in favor of life without the possibility of parole.

The Supreme Court affirmed noting "The evidence of national consensus against the death penalty for juveniles is similar, and in some respects parallel, to the evidence Atkins held sufficient to demonstrate a national consensus against the death penalty for the mentally retarded."

Good result. But is it the right reasoning? This whole "national consensus" argument scares me - some might argue that the national consensus is turning against abortion, given increasing regulations states are trying to impose that push the boundaries of Casey. When the abortion debate comes back to the Court, this argument could go the other way. Maybe this is what Sandy was thinking when she dissented... Come on folks, your job is not to parrot the people. That's the idea of the Supreme Court: when legislators (theoretically representing the people) make laws (theoretically representing the people's consensus), it is the Supreme Court's job to put the smack down if that flies in the face of Constitutional boundaries. You don't need the people's approval folks; you're smarter than they are. Just work on expanding the concepts of personal liberty and we'll all be ok. All the good reasons were mentioned in the case: younger folks are less capable of appreciating their actions, more susceptible to influence and have less static personalities. Rest on that to determine that it is cruel and unusual - you don't need to make it turn on the apparent evolution towards national rejection.

1 Comments:

  • About your last paragraph:
    I agree that the court should not be relying on the whimsy of the people in making their decisions, but Kennedy's admission that constitutional law evolves is key to their ability to expand liberty. Those expansions only do come, however, when society has changed somewhat. The problem arises when the court uses the shift in societies beliefs to restrict liberty instead of expanding it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home