Term: 2004
Docket: 03-633
Donald P. Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Christopher Simmons
- Pro
03-633 ROPER v. SIMMONS Ruling below: Supreme Court of Missouri, 112 S.W.3d 397 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Supreme Court of Missouri departed from this Court's holding in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), in which the Court upheld statutes under which the minimum age for capital punishment is sixteen. The Missouri court's decision raises two questions: 1. Once this Court holds that a particular punishment is not "cruel and unusual" and thus barred by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, can a lower court reach a contrary decision based on its own analysis of evolving standards? 2. Is the imposition of the death penalty on a person who commits a murder at age seventeen "cruel and unusual," and thus barred by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? CERT. GRANTED: 1/26/04
In the 2004 case of Donald P. Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Christopher Simmons, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The decision was based on an interpretation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. In a 5-4 ruling led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, they overturned their previous stance from Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), which had allowed states to determine whether minors could be eligible for death penalty sentences or not. The court reasoned that juveniles lack maturity and have an undeveloped sense of responsibility compared to adults; hence they should not be held accountable in same way as adults are in terms of criminal punishment.
In the dissenting opinion of Roper v. Simmons, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that the majority's decision was an unjustified usurpation of the societal role in determining moral standards for criminal punishment. He criticized their reliance on international law and public opinion polls to determine a national consensus against capital punishment for juvenile offenders. Scalia contended that there is no clear evidence of such a consensus; instead he suggested it should be left up to individual states to decide whether or not they wish to impose death penalty on minors. Furthermore, he asserted that even if there were a trend against executing juveniles, this does not necessarily mean it is unconstitutional - as constitutionality doesn't change with shifting societal opinions.
