Content deleted Content added
SilverLocust (talk | contribs) archiving deadlink to slip opinion (via WP:JWB) |
changed "retarded" to "disabled" per talk page request |
||
(10 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|2005 U.S. Supreme Court case on capital punishment}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = Roper v. Simmons
Line 31 ⟶ 32:
=== Facts of the case ===
In the state of [[Missouri]] in 1993, 17-year-old Christopher Simmons concocted a plan to commit [[burglary]] and [[murder]], having previously told friends that he "wanted to kill someone" and that he "believed he could get away with it because he was a minor".<ref>{{Bluebook journal|last=Myers|first=Wayne|year=2006|title=Roper v. Simmons: The Collision of National Consensus and Proportionality Review|volume=96|page=947–994|journal=J. Crim. L. & Criminology|url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=7240&context=jclc|url-access=May 22, 2023|punct= (internal quotation marks omitted).}}</ref> Simmons convinced two of his friends to join him: 15-year-old Charles Benjamin and 16-year-old John Tessmer.<ref name=":0">''Simmons'', at 556.</ref> Simmons met with Benjamin and Tessmer at 2 a.m. to carry out their plan, but Tessmer decided to leave before any crimes were committed.{{refn|Simmons, Benjamin, and Tessmer met on September 9, 1993 near the trailer of an older neighbor, a 29-year-old ex-convict named Brian Moomey, to discuss their plan. Simmons and his friends frequently visited Moomey's trailer in the months preceding the murder, where Moomey would let them drink alcohol and take drugs. Moomey would later be a key witness at trial.<ref>{{Bluebook journal|last=Emens|first=Elizabeth F.|year=2005|journal=Sup. Ct. Rev.|volume=2005|title=Aggravating Youth: Roper v Simmons and Age Discrimination|page=51–102|url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/655191|url-access=May 22, 2023}}</ref>|group=fn}}<ref
Simmons was heard "bragging about the murder" later that day and told his friends that he had killed a woman.<ref>{{Smallcaps|Myers}}, at 957.</ref> The day after the murder, police arrested Simmons and Benjamin at their high school after receiving a tip that they were involved in the murder.<ref>{{Bluebook website|last=O'Brien|first=Tim|title=Juvenile Death Penalty Update|url=https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2005/03/04/march-4-2005-juvenile-death-penalty-update/13046/|publisher=PBS|date=March 4, 2005}}</ref> At the police station in [[Fenton, Missouri]], Simmons waived his [[Right to counsel|right to attorney]] and agreed to answer questions.<ref>Br. of Roper 5.</ref> Simmons initially denied involvement but later confessed to the murder and agreed to perform a videotaped reenactment at the crime scene.<ref name="Br. of Simmons 2">Br. of Simmons 2.</ref> Simmons further told detectives that he recognized Crook as someone he had been in a minor traffic accident with several months earlier and that he believed Crook recognized him as well.<ref
Simmons was charged with first-degree murder, burglary, kidnapping, and stealing.<ref>''State v. Simmons'', 944 [[South Western Reporter|S.W.2d]] [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2441278/state-v-simmons/ 165] ([[Supreme Court of Missouri|Mo.]] 1997) (hereinafter cited as ''Simmons II'').</ref> He was tried as an adult.<ref name="Simmons, at 557">''Simmons'', at 557.</ref> At trial, Tessmer testified that Simmons planned the murder in advance.{{Refn|Tessmer was charged with criminal conspiracy for his role in the murder, but the charges were dropped in exchange for his testimony against Simmons.<ref
=== Lower court proceedings ===
Line 47 ⟶ 48:
This case was argued on October 13, 2004. The appeal challenged the constitutionality of capital punishment for persons who were juveniles when their crimes were committed, citing the [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eighth Amendment]] protection against [[cruel and unusual punishment]].
A 1988 Supreme Court decision, ''[[Thompson v. Oklahoma]]'', barred execution of offenders under the age of 16.<ref>{{ussc|name=Thompson v. Oklahoma|volume=487|page=815|year=1988}}.</ref> In 1989, another case, ''[[Stanford v. Kentucky]],'' upheld the possibility of capital punishment for offenders who were 16 or 17 years old when they committed the capital offense.<ref name="Stanford">{{ussc|name=Stanford v. Kentucky|volume=492|page=361|pin=|year=1989}}.</ref> The same day in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Penry v. Lynaugh]]'' that it was permissible to execute the intellectually disabled.<ref>{{ussc|name=Penry v. Lynaugh|492|302|1989}}.</ref> However, in 2002, that decision was overruled in ''[[Atkins v. Virginia]],'' where the Court held that evolving standards of decency had made the execution of the mentally
=== Opinion of the Court ===
Line 64 ⟶ 65:
In addition, Justice Scalia also objected in general to the Court's willingness to take guidance from foreign law in interpreting the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]; his dissent questioned not only the relevance of foreign law but also claimed the Court would "invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise", noting that in the case of [[abortion]], U.S. laws are less restrictive than the international norm.
Scalia also attacked the majority opinion as being fundamentally antidemocratic. His dissent cited a passage from ''[[The Federalist Papers]]'' in arguing that the role of the judiciary in the constitutional scheme is to interpret the law as formulated in democratically selected legislatures. He argued
==Implications==
Line 79 ⟶ 80:
=== Constitutional jurisprudence ===
The majority ruling highlighted several controversies in the field of constitutional [[jurisprudence]]. The first is the use of the concept of an evolving "national consensus" to allow for the re-interpretation of previous rulings. In this case, the evolving consensus was influenced by behavioral and other research studies, such as those presented to the court in an [[amicus brief]] by the [[American Psychological Association]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/roper.pdf|title=Roper v. Simmons |work=PsychLAW |publisher=American Psychological Association |access-date=2010-04-01}}</ref> What constitutes evidence for such a consensus—and from where the judicial branch derives its authority to determine it and implement it into law, a function constitutionally vested in the legislative branch, especially in the case of capital punishment—is unclear at this point.{{citation needed|date=September 2022}} In ''Roper v. Simmons'' the majority cited the abolishment of juvenile capital punishment in 30 states (18 of the 38 allowing capital punishment) as evidence of such a consensus. In ''[[Atkins v. Virginia]]'',<ref name=Atkins/> it was the "consensus" of the 30 states (18 of 38 allowing capital punishment) that had banned execution of the mildly
Another controversy is the role of foreign laws and norms in the interpretation of U.S. law. In 2004 [[United States House of Representatives|Representative]] [[Tom Feeney]] (
=== Beltway sniper case ===
Line 122 ⟶ 123:
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633
| other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
| other_url1 =
}}
* [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2004/03-633.pdf ''Transcript of Oral Argument'', Roper v. Simmons], October 13, 2004
|