Roper v. Simmons, (2005)REVERSED
...jurors, and judges place in sentencing juveniles to death and how such punishment is reserved only for the most extreme cases. The Court further cites the number of states that permit juvenile executions-nineteen- as cause for its prohibition. But comparing that number to States that allow adult executions, thirty-eight, the Court’s theory behind a “national consensus” forbidding juvenile executions hold’s little weight. With the variation of juvenile crimes among states, each State should be allowed to enact laws in accordance with its believes and not be forced to oblige by a national standard, as reserved to the States in the 10th Amendment. Brennan v. State , (1999), is an example where voters did not agree with a Florida’s Supreme Court decision banning executions of 16 year olds. Voters therefore reversed Brennan by passing Amendment 1 in 2002 (Article I, Section 17), which permitted the execution of 16 and 17 year olds. By taking away the State’s discretionary power to punish criminal offenders, the Court violates state’s rights to enact laws in accordance with the People’s wishes. In Penry v. Lynaugh , (1989), the Court declared laws enacted by the Nation’s legislatures provide the “clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values.” Roper contradicts such statement by invalidating nineteen State’s law permitting juvenile execution and forces States to abide by a false national consensus. In Ring, the Court ruled that a jury should handle consideration of aggravating factors for death sentences, not a judge in accordance with the 6th Amendment. Ring reinforces the importance of the jury in weighing mitigating and aggravating factors and deciding on a case-by-case basis if the circumstances of the crime and the characteristics of the offender warrant the death penalty. Roper opposes this ruling by disenfranchising the jury’s ability to decide if aggravating factors warrant the death penalty and therefore erodes the criminal justice system by failing to accomplish either goal held by the Court as the two distinct social purposes served by the death penalty: “retribution and deterrence of capital crimes…” In Atkins, the Court declared Capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit “a narrow category of the most serious crimes” and whose extreme culpability makes them “the most deserving of execution.” Christopher Simmons’s murder of Shirley Crook may not be considered to some as the most serious crime or most deserving of execution, but there is no doubt there will be cases in the future that meet and exceed these standards; however, states will be forbidden to make any exception due to Roper. Such a case occurred in Loggins v. State , (1999), when two 17 year olds, one 16 year old, and one 19 year old picked up a female hitchhiker, threw bottles at her, and kicked and stomped her for approximately 30 minutes until she died. They then sexually assaulted her lifeless body and, when they were finished, threw her body off a cliff. They later returned to the crime scene to mutilate her corpse. In accordance with Roper, Alabama is now force to vacate Kenneth Loggins’ death sentence along with thirteen other Alabama death row inmates that committed their crimes while under the age of 18. Roper unduly restricts States’ ability to punish criminals in proportion to their crime as stated in Weems v. United States , (1910), “precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to [the] offense.” Deterrence and retribution have been the main goal of the death penalty since Daniel Frank, the first recorded adult executed in 1622 and Thomas Graunger, the first juvenile executed in 1642 . The issue over how much, if any, deterrence the death penalty plays has been controversial, but Roper sends the wrong message to juveniles as stated in Christopher Simmons’s statements to friends while recruiting accomplices and bragging about the murder. Simmons said they could, “get away with it [murder]” because they were underage. Such a remark supports Justice O’Connor’s concerns: “Simmons’ prediction that he could murder with impunity because he had not yet turned 18—though inaccurate—suggests that he did take into account the perceived risk of punishment in deciding whether to commit the crime.” The Court also discusses the international opinion against juven...