Supreme Court to Consider Execution of Juvenile Offenders
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 2/10/2004
In what could be the next big step in criminal justice reform, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in January to hear a case involving the execution of juvenile offenders. While a decision will not be handed down until next year, experts say recent Court decisions and legislative action should make opponents of the practice optimistic.The Missouri Supreme Court last year, in Simmons v. Roper, determined that, "a national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders," and thereby ordered a stay on the execution of now 27-year-old Christopher Simmons, who was convicted of murder at age 17.
The Missouri court's ruling challenged a 1989 precedent by the U.S. Supreme Court that allowed the execution of offenders over the age of 15. At that time, experts say the Supreme Court's decision turned on the lack of national consensus against the execution of older teenagers.
"The United States prides itself in its treatment of young people. We spend
millions of dollars to make sure our children stay in school, remain
drug-free, refrain from tobacco use and do not become victims of abuse. We
further protect our children by not allowing them to join the military, sign
contracts, or purchase alcohol," said Brian Roberts, director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. "The similarity between the execution of mentally retarded people and youthful offenders is that neither class of individuals can be held as culpable for their actions as can fully functional, fully developed adults."
When deciding the Simmons case, Missouri's high court relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, which barred the execution of mentally retarded offenders. In that ruling the U.S. Supreme Court cited, 'a dramatic shift in the legislative landscape,' noting that several states had already abolished such executions. The same is now true in regard to juvenile executions, with only three states -- Texas, Virginia, and Oklahoma -- having executed juveniles in the past 10 years. Currently, 17 out of the 38 states that still impose the death penalty have set a minimum age of 18 for offenders to be eligible -- five more than in 1989.
According to the NCADP, the United States is one of only three countries that officially condones the execution of juvenile offenders; Iran and the Democratic Republic of Congo are the other two. Iran recently has made moves to end the practice, saying it is incompatible with Islamic Sharia law. Due to its official position, the United States is unable to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
"[T]here is one area where we fall woefully short in the protection and nurturance of our children. That area is the criminal justice system. Last year, the United States was the only country in the world to carry out an execution for a crime committed by a child before he turned 18 years of age," Roberts said.
In public testimony, Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy have expressed interest in international legal developments regarding the practice. When the Court refused to hear a similar case in 2002, four justices -- John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer -- dissented, calling the practice of executing juveniles, "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society."
Other decisions in U.S. courts and policy also foreshadow changes in administering the death penalty. In the 2002 case Ring v. Arizona, the Court ruled that only juries could impose the death penalty, and former Governors George Ryan of Illinois and Parris Glendening of Maryland have placed moratoriums on the use of capital punishment in their states. On the federal legislative front, the Innocence Protection Act seeks to ensure the availability of DNA testing for those facing the death penalty.
