Examining Roper v. Simmons

Introduction

In the United States, the death penalty has always been an issue of controversy. While there are people who see punishment as an "eye for an eye," there are those who believe the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment even for adults. Juveniles are no different when it comes to considering the death penalty. There are people who believe even juveniles should be put to death for murder. Then, there are those who believe, for whatever reason, that juveniles should not be put to death. The Supreme Court made a landmark ruling in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) by barring the death penalty for juveniles as it was construed as unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment. In Roper v. Simmons, the United States Supreme Court indeed provided Constitutional justice to juveniles on death row by barring the death penalty for juveniles as it was construed as unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.

A Brief Look at the Case 

Christopher Simmons' case came from Missouri. Simmons was charged with and convicted of murdering Shirley Crook (U. S. Supreme Court, 2005). The Supreme Court noted that Simmons was sentenced to death, but Simmons sought to have his sentence set aside with a new attorney (2005). Even though Simmons confessed to and assisted in reacting the crime, Simmons' new attorney was able to provide new witnesses after Simmons' sentence (U. S. Supreme Court, 2005). According to the Supreme Court, psychologists evaluated Simmons and were able to bring forth contentions about Simmons' difficult life growing up, including his home life, drugs and alcohol, which agree with the original arguments concerning the maturity of a 17 year old (2005). However, neither Simmons' trial court nor the Missouri Supreme Court set aside Simmons' conviction (U. S. Supreme Court, 2005).

Even though the United States Supreme Court had decided a similar case "in a decade and a half" prior to Simmons, the Court agreed to look into Simmons. The Court looked at "whether it was permissible under the 8^th and 14^th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to execute a juvenile offender who was older than 15 but younger than 18 when he committed a capital crime" (2005). The Court (2005) discussed many aspects of juveniles including maturity and psychological disorders that may affect the reasons as to why a juvenile commits such a crime. Additionally, the Court looked at the "growing consensus" through society that juveniles should not be executed both in the United States and internationally (2005). In the end, the Court ruled that both the 8^th and 14^th Amendments of the Constitution bar the execution of those who were juveniles, or under 18 years of age, when they committed a capital crime (2005).

Why Roper's Correct

 As brought up in Simmons' second trial, juveniles are different from adults not only intellectually, but also emotionally. This author considers many of the ideas as outlined by the Supreme Court. For many of life's "pleasures," those under the age of 18 are not able to do things. From signing up for the military, signing contracts and voting on to buying and smoking cigarettes and alcohol, juveniles are not allowed by law to participate in these things. While this author realizes there are some juveniles who are probably intellectual and emotionally better off than some adults, all "children" under the age of 18 should be considered in the same classification for legal purposes as the majority are not on an adult level mentally. These two primary mitigating circumstances - intellectual and emotionally - will be briefly discussed below.

In the 1980s, Lewis and colleagues performed a study on 14 of the 37 juveniles on death row (Cothern, 2000, p. 5). According to Cothern, Lewis and colleagues found disturbing information about these juveniles that were not used as mitigating factors during the trials (2000, p. 5). Lewis and colleagues' findings included the following medical findings: 14 with childhood head injuries, nine with neuropsychological disorder, 7 with psychotic disorders, 7 with psychiatric disturbances, only two with IQs above 90, three with average reading abilities, 12 abused somehow and five sodomized by relatives (Cothern, 2000, p. 5). According to Cothern, Lewis and colleagues' noted many reasons for these issues not being introduced at trial, which included families not wanting the heartache on to the public defenders being inadequately prepared (2000, pp. 5-6). As Lewis colleagues found, each one of these juveniles had some kind of mitigating circumstance that should have been taken into consideration during their trials. However, these juveniles were not afforded the right to present facts that may have negatively influenced these juveniles in early life.

A few later after Lewis and colleagues, Robinson and Stephens examined violent juveniles, which corroborated Lewis and colleagues' findings. According to Cothern, Robinson and Stephens studied 91 youth on death row between 1973 and 1991 based upon five areas, or mitigating circumstances (2000, p. 6). Cothern (2000) noted the five areas and findings of Robinson and Stephens: 1) almost half had childhood family and social issues, 2) 29 had a psychological disturbance, 3) about 1/3 a mental disability, 4) over ½ were indigent and 5) massive substance abuse in 18 before the crime (p. 6). Finally, Robinson and Stephens found that 67% of these youth had one or more factors present as previously outlined (Cothern, 2000, p. 6). Both Lewis and colleagues and Robinson and Stephens studies were early studies. However, this author believes that mental and developmental disorders have become more prevalent since the 90s, which, this author believes, has lead to more juvenile crimes.

Juvenile crime was on a decline before Roper was decided. However, in 2005 and 2006 juvenile arrests increased in both violent, 17% of all arrests, and property crimes, 26% of all arrests, with murder and robbery both specifically increasing (Snyder, 2008, p. 1). Prior to these results being released, the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice (NCMHJJ) and Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA) worked together to examine mental health issues in juveniles, which verified the information previously discussed. However, this study used looked at the juvenile justice system delinquents as a whole, not just those on death row. Shufelt and Cocozza found that 70.4% of the juveniles in the system had a mental illness, 79% met criteria for two mental illnesses and 60% met criteria for three or more mental illnesses (2006, p. 2-3). The mental health disorder findings included: disruptive disorders, conduct disorders, substance use disorders, anxiety disorders and mood disorders (Shufelt and Cocozza, 2006, pp. 2). As in Simmons' case and the previous studies, Shufelt and Cocozza corroborated the importance of considering mental and intellectual health in juveniles.

Counterarguments

As with any important social issue, contrasting opinions abound. In Roper, the Justice for All Alliance, or JFAA, represented the victim's family and provided a brief to the Supreme Court citing the reasons that Simmons should be executed. This author will briefly identify a couple of these counterarguments as presented by JFAA.

The JFAA argues that juveniles are able to determine right from wrong and are able to be deterred from committing crimes. Cutrer claims that "deterrence is linked to moral culpalbility because it is based on the notion that a person will not form the requisite intent to kill because of the threat of death (n.d., p. 18). According to Cutrer, "Juveniles are capable of forming the requisite intent to kill to merit the death penalty, which should be deterred by the threat of death" (n.d., p. 3). Additionally, Cutrer wrote, "juvenile defendants, even those in the same age group, are shaped by individual life experiences and therefore possess different levels of maturity and make different choices" (n.d., p. 3). Furthermore, Cutrer urged the Court not to use the states who made it illegal to execute juveniles but instead look at the states that allowed it (n.d., p. 4). However, the Court even agreed that there was a consensus between the states that juveniles should not be executed (2005). As also presented above, if a juvenile suffers from a mental health illness, he or she may not know right from wrong.

Cutrer brought up the concept of mitigating factors. As outlined, Cutrer noted that aggravating circumstances should override mitigating factors (n.d., p. 17). However, Cutrer failed to list all of the mitigating factors in Simmons' case. Cutrer noted the mitigating circumstances as Simmons' age, unable to think about the future, vote and drink alcohol (n.d., p. 17). Contrary to these, the prosecution believed that Simmons' age was an aggravating circumstance along with Simmons' intent and the way in which he committed the murder (n.d., p. 17). As discussed previously, Simmons' background needed to also be considered as mitigating. Simmons' psychological evaluations and such demonstrated that he came from a bad background and had substance abuse problems all of which may have contributed to Simmons' state of mind in both planning and carrying out this murder.

Conclusion

While mental health disorders and intellect are probably not the only reasons that juveniles commit crimes of any kind, this author believes that there has been enough research done that verifies the mental and intellectual abilities of many of our juveniles. Even though Cutrer argued that juveniles are able to know right from wrong, this author believes that juveniles must have a strong family and mental foundation upon which their beliefs grow. Without these, juveniles are not able to make what would be considered the right decision. Finally as demonstrated in Roper, even the Supreme Court believed that those who committed a capital crime under the age of 18 should not be sentenced to death due to the varied mental and intellectual abilities.

References

Cothern, L. (2000). "Juveniles and the death penalty." Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Provision. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service Web site: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/184748.pdf

Cutrer, D. (n.d.). Brief of Amici Curiae Justice for All Alliance in Support of Petitioner. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from Web site: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Issues/Simmons_Amicus_Brief.pdf

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). Retrieved March 15, 2009, from Web site: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZO.html

Shufelt, J. L. and Cocozza, J. J. (2006). Youth with Mental Health Disorders in the Juvenile Justice System: Results from a Multi-State Prevalence Study. Retrieved, March 11, 2009, from NCMHJJ, Web site: http://www.ncmhjj.com/pdfs/publications/PrevalenceRPB.pdf

Snyder, H. N. (2008). "Juvenile Arrests 2006." Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Web site: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/221338.pdf

 © Beardsley, 2009