As the Supreme Court heard argu­ments in the case of Roper v. Simmons on October 13, news­pa­pers through­out the coun­try fea­tured edi­to­ri­als and opin­ion pieces call­ing on the U.S. to aban­don the prac­tice of exe­cut­ing juve­nile offend­ers:

The New York Times

When the Supreme Court con­sid­ers an Eighth Amendment chal­lenge, it looks to ​“evolv­ing stan­dards of decen­cy” — and there has been a steady move­ment nation­al­ly away from the juve­nile death penal­ty. In the 15 years since the Supreme Court last con­sid­ered this ques­tion, a sig­nif­i­cant num­ber of states, includ­ing Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota and New York have pro­hib­it­ed the exe­cu­tion of juve­nile offend­ers. In 30 states and the District of Columbia, there now is either no death penal­ty, or the death penal­ty applies only to peo­ple who were 18 or old­er at the time of their crimes. Even in those states where juve­nile offend­ers can be exe­cut­ed, it is extreme­ly rare. Only three states have done so in the past decade.

When it con­sid­ers this case, the court should give weight to the grow­ing sci­en­tif­ic lit­er­a­ture that says young peo­ple’s brains are still devel­op­ing in impor­tant ways before the age of 18, and to the near­ly unan­i­mous inter­na­tion­al opin­ion on this issue.

On the same day in 1989 that the court upheld the death penal­ty for juve­nile offend­ers, it ruled that the men­tal­ly retard­ed could be exe­cut­ed. But in 2002, the court reversed itself, con­clud­ing that nation­al stan­dards of decen­cy had evolved away from per­mit­ting the exe­cu­tion of the men­tal­ly retard­ed. The court should reach the same con­clu­sion now for juve­nile offend­ers. (New York Times Editorial, October 13, 2004).

Chicago Tribune

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral argu­ments on Wednesday in a case that could lead to a legal pro­hi­bi­tion on the exe­cu­tion of any­one under 18 years old.

The high court in 1989 estab­lished the cri­te­ria for decid­ing whether such exe­cu­tions are per­mis­si­ble. At that time, it found there was no nation­al con­sen­sus that the exe­cu­tion of juve­nile offend­ers and the men­tal­ly retard­ed vio­lat­ed the 8th Amendment pro­tec­tion against cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ment.

…

In 2002, apply­ing that same stan­dard of nation­al con­sen­sus and ​“evolv­ing stan­dards of decen­cy,” and look­ing in par­tic­u­lar at what state leg­is­la­tures were doing about the issue, the court reversed itself and declared that exe­cu­tions of those with men­tal retar­da­tion were uncon­sti­tu­tion­al.

It’s dif­fi­cult to see how the court could now reach a dif­fer­ent con­clu­sion in regard to juve­niles. The case against exe­cut­ing juve­niles is as strong as that against exe­cut­ing those who are men­tal­ly retard­ed.

…

The court in 1988 ruled it was imper­mis­si­ble to exe­cute chil­dren under age 16. The ques­tion at hand is whether, in effect, to extend such pro­tec­tion to 16- and 17-year-olds.

In seek­ing evi­dence of a nation­al con­sen­sus, the court is like­ly to con­sid­er trends in jury sen­tences in cap­i­tal cas­es, pub­lic opin­ion polls, posi­tions tak­en by pro­fes­sion­al and reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions and even inter­na­tion­al prac­tice. The direc­tion in all of those realms sup­ports the argu­ment that these exe­cu­tions should be elim­i­nat­ed.

Admittedly, it seems to be an odd way to deter­mine con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty. Public con­sen­sus is usu­al­ly the province of leg­is­la­tures.

In this case, though, Congress and the states through a con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment hand­ed the courts the pow­er to judge what is cru­el and unusu­al in crim­i­nal law. There was a time in this nation’s his­to­ry when it was con­sid­ered appro­pri­ate to exe­cute some­one for steal­ing a neigh­bor’s chick­en. Things have evolved.

And now it’s time for them to evolve again. (Chicago Tribune, October 13, 2004).

The Washington Post

The Supreme Court has an oppor­tu­ni­ty this term to cor­rect one of the ugli­er mis­takes of its recent his­to­ry: its 1989 deci­sion uphold­ing the death penal­ty for juve­niles. Yesterday the court held oral argu­ments in a case that asks whether it will con­tin­ue to stand behind that rul­ing. It should­n’t. … Even for those who favor the death penal­ty, killing juve­nile offend­ers should be beyond the con­sti­tu­tion­al pale.

…

Of the 22 juve­nile con­victs exe­cut­ed since the death penal­ty’s rein­state­ment, almost 60 per­cent were put to death in Texas. Only sev­en states have exe­cut­ed juve­nile offend­ers, and in the past 10 years, only three states — Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia — have done so. … Juries are increas­ing­ly reluc­tant to impose the death penal­ty on those who were chil­dren when they com­mit­ted their crimes. And while over­seas prac­tice should­n’t bind American con­sti­tu­tion­al law, it is worth not­ing the com­pa­ny this coun­try has to keep in sub­ject­ing juve­niles to cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment: China, Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The prac­tice sim­ply no longer exists among demo­c­ra­t­ic nations.

Abolishing the juve­nile death penal­ty will not dra­mat­i­cal­ly alter the debate over cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in this coun­try. It will, how­ev­er, bring to bear against a few out­ly­ing states the pow­er­ful nation­al con­sen­sus that chil­dren — even when they do ter­ri­ble things — are dif­fer­ent from adults. Insulating them from the ulti­mate pun­ish­ment should not be a tough call. (The Washington Post, October 14, 2004).


USA Today (Opinion Piece by for­mer President Jimmy Carter)

I am hope­ful our top court will take this oppor­tu­ni­ty to acknowl­edge that evolv­ing stan­dards of decen­cy at home and abroad — as well as basic prin­ci­ples of American jus­tice — require the rejec­tion of exe­cut­ing chil­dren once and for all.

Opposition to juve­nile cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment has gained sig­nif­i­cant momen­tum in the past few years in the United States.

…

The elim­i­na­tion of the juve­nile death penal­ty would be a sig­nif­i­cant step in bring­ing the U.S. in line with the moral con­sen­sus of the glob­al com­mu­ni­ty. The Founders of our great nation cel­e­brat­ed the need for ​“a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind” in our Declaration of Independence. Since the end of World War II, our coun­try has tak­en the lead in speak­ing out against human-rights vio­la­tions else­where in the world and has enjoyed respect in world affairs.

The American sys­tem of con­sti­tu­tion­al democ­ra­cy and guar­an­teed free­doms has stood as an exem­plar in the eyes of peo­ple and nations emerg­ing from total­i­tar­i­an and repres­sive regimes. The con­tin­ued pol­i­cy of exe­cut­ing juve­niles detracts pro­found­ly from our cred­i­bil­i­ty as a cham­pi­on of human rights and, there­fore, erodes our abil­i­ty to influ­ence the behav­ior of oth­er nations and world lead­ers.

While almost uni­ver­sal con­dem­na­tion of the juve­nile death penal­ty has become as well rec­og­nized as the glob­al pro­hi­bi­tions against slav­ery, tor­ture and geno­cide, in America we have exe­cut­ed more juve­niles in the past 15 years than all oth­er coun­tries com­bined.

For all of these rea­sons, I joined a ​“friend of the court” brief to the Supreme Court in this case. Nobel Peace Prize win­ners, includ­ing for­mer Russian pres­i­dent Mikhail Gorbachev, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Tibetan Dalai Lama all have encour­aged the court to reject juve­nile cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. I fer­vent­ly hope the jurists will agree with these esteemed peace­mak­ers.

Our nation is now acknowl­edg­ing what the rest of the world already knows: Executing juve­nile offend­ers is cru­el and inhu­mane. (USA Today, October 13, 2004).


See Other Editorials on the Juvenile Death Penalty and Editorials.

Citation Guide