Supreme Court to Consider Execution of Juvenile Offenders

Agree2Disagree Forum

By civilrights.org staff
civilrights.org
February 10, 2004

In what could be the next big step in criminal justice reform, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in January to hear a case involving the execution of juvenile offenders. While a decision will not be handed down until next year, experts say recent Court decisions and legislative action should make opponents of the practice optimistic.

The Missouri Supreme Court last year, in Simmons v. Roper, determined that, "a national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders," and thereby ordered a stay on the execution of now 27-year-old Christopher Simmons, who was convicted of murder at age 17.

The Missouri court's ruling challenged a 1989 precedent by the U.S. Supreme Court that allowed the execution of offenders over the age of 15. At that time, experts say the Supreme Court's decision turned on the lack of national consensus against the execution of older teenagers.

"The United States prides itself in its treatment of young people. We spend
millions of dollars to make sure our children stay in school, remain
drug-free, refrain from tobacco use and do not become victims of abuse. We
further protect our children by not allowing them to join the military, sign
contracts, or purchase alcohol," said Brian Roberts, director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. "The similarity between the execution of mentally retarded people and youthful offenders is that neither class of individuals can be held as culpable for their actions as can fully functional, fully developed adults."

When deciding the Simmons case, Missouri's high court relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, which barred the execution of mentally retarded offenders. In that ruling the U.S. Supreme Court cited, 'a dramatic shift in the legislative landscape,' noting that several states had already abolished such executions. The same is now true in regard to juvenile executions, with only three states -- Texas, Virginia, and Oklahoma -- having executed juveniles in the past 10 years. Currently, 17 out of the 38 states that still impose the death penalty have set a minimum age of 18 for offenders to be eligible -- five more than in 1989.

According to the NCADP, the United States is one of only three countries that officially condones the execution of juvenile offenders; Iran and the Democratic Republic of Congo are the other two. Iran recently has made moves to end the practice, saying it is incompatible with Islamic Sharia law. Due to its official position, the United States is unable to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

"[T]here is one area where we fall woefully short in the protection and nurturance of our children. That area is the criminal justice system. Last year, the United States was the only country in the world to carry out an execution for a crime committed by a child before he turned 18 years of age," Roberts said.

In public testimony, Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy have expressed interest in international legal developments regarding the practice. When the Court refused to hear a similar case in 2002, four justices -- John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer -- dissented, calling the practice of executing juveniles, "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society."

Other decisions in U.S. courts and policy also foreshadow changes in administering the death penalty. In the 2002 case Ring v. Arizona, the Court ruled that only juries could impose the death penalty, and former Governors George Ryan of Illinois and Parris Glendening of Maryland have placed moratoriums on the use of capital punishment in their states. On the federal legislative front, the Innocence Protection Act seeks to ensure the availability of DNA testing for those facing the death penalty.

This has been something that has been coming for awhile...people are just not tolerating the execution of juveniles anymore...

Some people are suggesting that this is a step into the direction of the stoppage of all executions...especially with the fact that the average time spend on death row has gone from 9 years to 11 years.

Im really stuck in the middle of this subject though...its hard to justify the killing of a juvenile....

I think the real question is, what defines a juvenile? Doesnt a 17 year old know that a killing of such sort can lead to this?

A 15 year old? Maybe...I can see that they are still too young to really understand the end consequence....16? maybe the same thing...

But 17-18...shouldnt they know?

I dont know...again, I think it all comes down to the definition of a juvenile...and what do they really know and understand?

I guess until then...it should be stopped...

I'm stuck on this one.

Me too, mystic. But, I think that because of HOW society is today... kids aren't naive like they once were. They have street smarts. TV/Movies have shown them violence and killing... and video games too. They know that it's wrong.. but still, they commit these crimes. There needs to be serious punishments.... and just like adults who kill, they don't all go for the death penalty. It depends how heinous of a crime it was. Was it planned? Did it just happen?

It's a very tough place to be... to have to make a decision like this. I think that it should be taken on a case-by-case basis.

I'm with you both, I'm definitely stuck on this one. I'm reminded of a case here in Tampa a couple of years ago. It was a trio of teens, two 18 year old boys and a 16 year old girl. The girl was out of control, skipping school, doing drugs and dating one of the boys who was less than ideal for ANYONE's daughter. The girl's mother, single and at her wit's end decided to send the girl off to a kind of military school for troubled kids. When the girl found out about it, she, her boyfriend and their friend plotted her mother's murder. First they wanted to give her an overdose of heroine, but they couldn't find any.
One night they surprised her in the kitchen of her own home. The boyfriend hit her in the face and knocked her to the ground. The daughter sat on top of her own mother's legs to keep her from moving, while the boyfriend injected the only thing they could think of into her; bleach. They continued beating her, the 3rd friend looking on, and never really participating, but never doing anything to stop it. The trio left her on the floor and went to the girl's room where they smoked pot and talked about how great a thing they'd just done. When the mother was moaning on the kitchen floor, still not dead, the boyfriend and daughter became aggitated that "the b!tch just won't die!" the boyfriend returned to the kitchen, pulled out a knife and repeatedly stabbed the mother until she stopped moving. They'd finally succeeded.
They stuffed her body into a large trash container and dumped it in a ditch not to far from where I live. Then they took all the dead mother's cash, credit cards and car, and took off on a road trip, ending in Texas where they were pulled over and detained for questioning.
After the 3 separate trials, the verdicts were clear, The boyfriend was sentenced to death. The Daughter was sentenced to 25 years, with possible early release in 10 years. The friend who didn't participate in the actual murder got 30 years in prison.
I was outraged, as was most of the community. I just feel that at 16, 17, 18 & 19, kids know the difference between being careless and committing murder. This girl killed her OWN mother! I just didn't feel her punishment was severe enough. Maybe the death penalty isn't the answer for her or her boyfriend, but I feel that even at 16, (17 at her trial) she should have gotten a stiffer penalty.

I know exactly what you are saying! And I also agree with KJ that it should be based on a case by case basis...

I saw that the female in the case you talked about was given less time then the guys...

And thats a whole other issue...woman and prison and their sentences being more lenient....

But Yes...I think today's juvenile is smarter than years back...they know...therefore they should pay.....

Even if we out them in prison for 25 years (lets say they have to serve 25)...and they are 17 when going in....they dont get out until they are 42 years old.....

What kind of person will they be now? Will anyone be waiting for them (family) when they get out? What measures do they resport to after learning about life on the inside...do they come out more knowledgeable about crimnal activity or have they learned their lesson?

I dont know...Im so stuck on what to do...but I think it shouldnt end completely, but do like KJ said...on a case by case basis.

Wow, all great points Mystic, you & KJ are right, it should be looked upon as a case by case basis. And about entering prison at 17 and getting out at 42, will they really be maladjusted individuals ready for life in society? Tough questions.