Content deleted Content added
m Reverted 1 edit by 198.150.101.222 (talk) to last revision by TenWhile6 |
changed "retarded" to "disabled" per talk page request |
||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 8 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
|
}}
'''''Roper v. Simmons''''', 543 U.S. 551 (2005),
== Background ==
=== 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 name=":0"/> Simmons and Benjamin later broke into the home of Shirley Crook, a 46-year-old neighbor, where they [[Duct tape|duct-taped]] her mouth and eyes shut before [[Kidnapping|abducting]] her in her van.<ref>{{smallcaps|Emens}}, at 56.</ref> Simmons drove Crook's van to [[Castlewood State Park]] and parked near a railroad [[trestle bridge]], where Simmons and Benjamin unloaded Crook from the van.<ref>Br. of Roper 6.</ref> They then covered her head with a towel, wrapped her in [[Electrical wiring|electrical wire]], and threw her off of the trestle bridge into the [[Meramec River]] while she was still alive and conscious.{{Refn|Benjamin stated in a 2002 interview that he waited in the car while Simmons threw Crook off of the bridge and that he didn't know what happened to Crook until the following morning. However, prosecutors stated that it would have taken both Simmons and Benjamin to carry Crook's body to the bridge.<ref>Tim Rowden, ''[https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-louis-post-dispatch-murderer-how-te/125684357/ Murderer: How teen burglars became killers]'', {{smallcaps|[[St. Louis Post-Dispatch]]}}, June 6, 2002.</ref>|group=fn}}<ref>''Simmons'', at 556–557; at 618 (Scalia, J., dissenting).</ref> Crook's body was discovered that afternoon by a group of fishermen.{{Refn|Shirley Crook was reported as a missing person earlier that afternoon by her husband Steven Crook, who was away from home on an overnight trip on the night of the murder.<ref name="Simmons, at 557">''Simmons'', at 557.</ref>|group=fn}}<ref>Roy Malone, ''[https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-louis-post-dispatch-teens-killed-wom/125124827/ Teens Killed Woman, Got $6, Police Say]'', {{smallcaps|[[St. Louis Post-Dispatch]]}}, September 11, 1993.</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 name="Br. of Simmons 2"/>
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 name=":0"/>|group=fn}} The jury found Simmons guilty of Crook's murder and recommended the [[Capital punishment|death penalty]], which the trial court imposed. For his role, Benjamin was sentenced to [[Life imprisonment in the United States|life without parole]].<ref>Paul Raeburn, ''[https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/too-immature-for-the-death-penalty.html Too Immature for the Death Penalty?]'', {{smallcaps|[[The New York Times|N.Y. Times]]}}, October 17, 2004.</ref>
=== Lower court proceedings ===
Simmons moved for the trial court to set aside the conviction and sentence, citing, in part, ineffective assistance of counsel. His age, and thus impulsiveness, along with a troubled background, were brought up as issues that Simmons claimed should have been raised at the sentencing phase. The trial court rejected the motion, and Simmons appealed.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=State v. Simmons |vol=944 |reporter=S.W.2d |opinion=165 |court=[[Supreme Court of Missouri|Mo.]] |date=1997 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2441278/state-v-simmons/ |access-date=2018-06-17 }}</ref>
Line 40 ⟶ 45:
The State of Missouri appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.<ref>{{ussc|name=Roper v. Simmons|540|1160|2004|el=no}}. (Donald P. Roper, the Superintendent of the correctional facility where Simmons was held, was a party to the action because it was brought as a petition for a writ of ''[[habeas corpus]]''.)</ref>
==
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>
=== Opinion of the Court ===
Under the "evolving standards of decency" test, the Court held that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the murder. Writing for the majority, [[Anthony Kennedy|Justice Kennedy]] cited a body of sociological and scientific research{{ref|research}} that found that juveniles have a lack of maturity and sense of responsibility compared to adults. Adolescents were found to be over-represented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior. The Court noted that in recognition of the comparative immaturity and irresponsibility of juveniles, almost every state prohibited those under age 18 from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent. The studies also found that juveniles are more vulnerable to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure. They have less control, or experience with control, over their own environment. They also lack the freedom that adults have, to escape a criminogenic setting.<ref>See {{Citation |last=Steinberg | author-link = Laurence Steinberg |first=Laurence |name-list-style=amp |last2=Scott |first2=Elizabeth S. |title=Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty |journal=American Psychologist |volume=58 |issue=12 |pages=1009–1018 [p. 1014] |year=2003 |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1009 |pmid=14664689 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.497.7026 }}.</ref>
In support of the "national consensus" position, the Court noted that states were reducing the frequency by which they applied capital punishment to juvenile offenders. At the time of the decision, [[List of juveniles executed in the United States since 1976|20 states had the juvenile death penalty on the books]], but only six states had executed prisoners since 1989 for crimes committed as juveniles. Only three states had done so since 1994: [[Oklahoma]], [[Texas]], and [[Virginia]]. Furthermore, five of the states that allowed the juvenile death penalty at the time of the 1989 case had since abolished it.
The Court also looked to practices in other countries to support the holding. Between 1990 and the time of the case, the court said, "only seven countries other than the United States ha[d] executed juvenile offenders ... : [[Iran]], [[Pakistan]], [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Yemen]], [[Nigeria]], the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]], and [[China]]." Justice Kennedy noted that since 1990, each of those countries had either abolished the death penalty for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice, and that the United States stood alone in allowing execution of juvenile offenders. The Court also noted that only the United States and [[Somalia]] had not ratified Article 37 of the [[United Nations]] [[Convention on the Rights of the Child]] (September 2, 1990), which expressly prohibits capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles.
===
[[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia]] wrote a dissent joined by [[William Rehnquist|Chief Justice Rehnquist]] and [[Clarence Thomas|Justice Thomas]]. [[Sandra Day O'Connor|Justice O'Connor]] also wrote a dissenting opinion. The dissents put into question whether a "national consensus" had formed among the state laws, citing the fact that at the time of the ruling, only 18 of the 38 states allowing the death penalty (47%) prohibited the execution of juveniles.
Line 59 ⟶ 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 69 ⟶ 75:
Prior to the ''Roper'' decision, there had been 22 [[List of juveniles executed in the United States since 1976|executions since 1976 of individuals who were juveniles]] at the time they committed the crime; 13 were in Texas.
In ''Ex parte Adams'',
=== 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.
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 ===
{{see also|
The implications of this ruling were immediately felt in the State of [[Virginia]], where [[Lee Boyd Malvo]] became no longer eligible for the death penalty for his role in the [[
===
The State sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, raising a single issue, "Whether this Court should reconsider its decision in ''Roper v. Simmons'', 543 U.S. 551 (2005)". The Supreme Court denied ''[[certiorari]]'' (i.e., declined to take the case for review) on June 19, 2006, without a published dissent.{{Citation needed|date=May 2023}}▼
▲In ''Ex parte Adams'',<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Ex parte Adams |vol=955 |reporter=So. 2d |opinion=1106 |court=[[Supreme Court of Alabama|Ala.]] |date=2005 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1619970/ex-parte-adams/ |access-date=2018-06-17 }}</ref> the [[Supreme Court of Alabama]] remanded the death sentence of a juvenile for a rehearing in the lower court in light of the ''Roper'' decision, which was released while the Adams case was pending [[appeal]]. Justice [[Tom Parker (judge)|Tom Parker]], who had participated in the [[prosecutor|prosecution]] of the case, [[recusal|recused]] himself. He published an [[Editorial|op-ed]] in ''[[The Birmingham News]]'' to criticize his non-recused colleagues for their decision. Justice Parker wrote that "State supreme courts may decline to follow bad U.S. Supreme Court [[precedent]]s because those decisions bind only the parties to the particular case".
▲The State sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, raising a single issue, "Whether this Court should reconsider its decision in ''Roper v. Simmons'', 543 U.S. 551 (2005)". The Supreme Court denied ''[[certiorari]]'' (i.e., declined to take the case for review) on June 19, 2006, without a published dissent.
== See also ==
Line 95 ⟶ 101:
== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=fn}}
== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Further reading ==
{{wikinews|U.S. Supreme Court: Death penalty for juveniles is unconstitutional}}
* Lane, Charles (March 2, 2005) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62584-2005Mar1.html 5-4 Supreme Court Abolishes Juvenile Executions] ''[[The Washington Post]]'', p. A01.
* Boorstein, Michelle (October 27, 2004) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64390-2004Oct26.html Malvo Gets Two More Life Terms, Teen Sniper Enters Plea In Spotsylvania Attacks] ''[[The Washington Post]]'', p. B01.
* {{Bluebook journal | first=Wayne A. | last=Logan | title=Proportionality and Punishment: Imposing Life without Parole on Juveniles | volume=33 | journal=Wake Forest L. Rev. | page=681 | pin= | url=https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/203/ | year=1998 }}
* {{Bluebook journal | first=Hillary J. | last=Massey | title=Disposing of Children: The Eighth Amendment and Juvenile Life without Parole after Roper | volume=47 | journal=B.C.L. Rev. | page=1083 | pin= | url=https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol47/iss5/4 | year=2006}}
* [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/juvenile-offenders-who-were-death-row Death Penalty Information Center – Juvenile Offenders Who Were On Death Row]▼
==External links==
Line 112 ⟶ 122:
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633
| other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
| other_url1 =https://web.archive.org/web/0/{{SCOTUS URL Slip|04|03-633}}
}}
* [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2004/03-633.pdf ''Transcript of Oral Argument'', Roper v. Simmons], October 13, 2004
▲* [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/juvenile-offenders-who-were-death-row Death Penalty Information Center – Juvenile Offenders Who Were On Death Row]
* ''[https://www.findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/03-633/03-633.pet.pdf Petition for a Writ of Certiorari]'', October 24, 2003
* ''[https://www.findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/03-633/03-633.mer.pet.pdf Brief of Petitioner, Donald P. Roper]'', April 20, 2004
* ''[https://www.findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/03-633/03-633.mer.pet.rep.pdf Reply Brief of Petitioner, Donald P. Roper]'', September 7, 2004
* ''[https://www.findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/03-633/03-633.mer.resp.pdf Brief of Respondent, Christopher Simmons]'', July 19, 2004
{{US8thAmendment}}
| |||