Roper v. Simmons: Difference between revisions

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=&nbsp;(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'', at 556.<name=":0"/ref> 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 fishermanfishermen.{{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.<"/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>''Simmons'', at 556.<name=":0"/ref>|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>

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 retardeddisabled "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus unconstitutional.<ref name="Atkins" />

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 that the Court exists to rule on what the law ''says'', not what it ''should'' say, and that it is for the ''legislature'', acting in the manner prescribed in [[Article Five of the United States Constitution|Article V]] of the Constitution to offer amendments to the Constitution in light of the evolving standard of decency, not for the ''Court'' to arbitrarily make what he considered ''de facto'' amendments. He challenged the right of unelected lawyers to discern moral values and to impose them on the people in the name of flexible readings of the constitutional text.

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 retardeddisabled.

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]] (FL-R-FL) introduced a non-binding resolution instructing the judiciary to ignore foreign precedent when making their rulings: "This resolution advises the courts they are no longer engaging in 'good behavior' in the meaning of the Constitution and they may subject themselves to the ultimate remedy, which would be impeachment."<ref>[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4506232 "A flap over foreign matter at the Supreme Court"] - NBC News coverage of Feeney resolution</ref>

| other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)

| other_url1 =https://web.archive.org/web/0/{{SCOTUS URL Slip|04|03-633}}