Roper v. Simmons: Difference between revisions

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 retarded.

 

 

=== Beltway sniper case ===