Supreme Court Examines Impact of Juvenile Executions: Analysis and Expert Opinion

Summary

The Supreme Court of the United States is currently weighing the legality of juvenile executions, a topic which has stirred up a great deal of controversy. The case in question involves a 17-year-old convict, Brett Jones, who was convicted of murder and is facing the death penalty in the state of Mississippi.


At issue is the question of whether juveniles should be subjected to capital punishment, a practice which is outlawed in almost all other nations. Opponents of the death penalty argue that it is cruel and unusual punishment and should not be used against those who are too young to have full understanding of their actions. Proponents of the death penalty, however, argue that it is important to have a system of justice that allows for retribution against those who commit the most heinous crimes.

The Supreme Court has yet to make a decision on the case. In the meantime, however, many questions remain about the morality and the legality of juvenile executions. Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of allowing for the death penalty for those under the age of 18, the decision will likely have far-reaching implications for criminal justice systems across the nation.

The Supreme Court is currently considering the constitutionality of juvenile executions in the United States. The case in question involves a 17-year-old convict, Brett Jones, who is facing the death penalty in Mississippi. The debate around this case is centered around the morality and legality of executing juveniles, an idea that is widely opposed in all other nations. Supporters of the death penalty view it as necessary due to the heinousness of certain crimes, while opponents argue that the punishment is too extreme for those who may not fully understand their actions. The decision of the Supreme Court will have huge implications for criminal justice systems in the US. The legal and moral implications of juvenile executions have made this case a highly contentious issue.
 

Juvenile Executions

The United States Supreme Court is currently weighing a case involving the execution of juvenile offenders. In 2005, the court ruled that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes. However, the court is now considering a case about whether or not a Louisiana man, who was under the age of 18 when he filmed a double murder in 2014, can be put to death, should he be convicted.
 

Issue of Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The issue of whether it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute juveniles has been debated for some time. Supporters of the death penalty argue that juveniles should be held accountable for their actions, just as adults are, and that they should not be given special exceptions or privileges. Opponents of the death penalty believe that juvenile offenders, due to their immaturity, lack of life experience, and developing brains, should be treated differently than adults and should not be subject to the death penalty.
 

Recent Court Decisions

In the past, the Supreme Court has tended to side with those who oppose the death penalty for juveniles. In 2005, the court found in Roper v. Simmons that executing a juvenile was a violation of the 8th Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling overturned a 1989 court decision in Stanford v. Kentucky which held that the execution of a juvenile was not automatically cruel and unusual punishment.
 

International Law

In addition to domestic judicial decisions, international law also weighs in on the issue of juvenile executions. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted in 1989 and ratified by the United States in 1995, explicitly states that the execution of those who were under the age of 18 when they committed the crime is prohibited.
 

Supreme Court Case

The current Supreme Court case, Jones v. Louisiana, involves the issue of whether or not the execution of a juvenile offender is unconstitutional. The defendant, Christopher Sepulvado, was 17 years old when he filmed a double murder in 2014. If convicted, he could be sentenced to death. Sepulvado's lawyers argue that the execution of juveniles is in violation of the US Constitution and international law. The Supreme Court will have to decide whether or not the execution of juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment.

The case — Roper v. Simmons—has attracted worldwide attention, with many foreign countries filing briefs that cite international human rights norms as justifications for banning the practice.

According to the human rights group Amnesty International, besides the United States, the only countries to execute juvenile offenders since 2000 were Iran, Pakistan, China, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Pakistan and China have since abolished the juvenile death penalty. And the United States—along with Somalia, which lacks a central government—are the only countries that have not ratified the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child, which bars capital punishment for juveniles.

By continuing to execute minors, "we are literally alone in the world," said Seth Waxman, arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of Christopher Simmons. Mr. Simmons was sentenced to death for murdering Shirley Crook in September 1993 when he was 17 years old. By a 4-3 vote in August 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned his death sentence and sentenced him to life imprisonment, ruling that the execution of those who committed crimes while under 18 violates "evolving standards of decency" and is prohibited by the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case October 13 and is not expected to rule until 2005.

Early in the arguments came the question of whether overwhelming world opinion against juvenile executions should influence the Court's interpretation of the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

"Suppose it were shown that the United States was one of the very, very few countries that executed juveniles, and that's true. Does that have a bearing on whether or not it's unusual?" Justice Anthony Kennedy asked.

James Layton, representing the state of Missouri, replied that the Court's judgment "should not be based on what happens in the rest of the world." Rather, he added, it should be based on the "mores of American society."

Observers are divided on how much influence the international community should have on the Court's decisions. "Virtually none," according to Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. "Contemporary international opinion should have no bearing on shaping domestic law," he said. Instead, people through the states retain the right to determine the legality of juvenile capital punishment.

"The courts always have looked to international law in interpreting national standards," countered Constance de la Vega of the University of San Francisco School of Law, who wrote an amicus brief for the Bar of England and Wales, Human Rights Advocates, Human Rights Watch, and the World Organization for Human Rights USA.

The juvenile death penalty challenge is just one of a series of recent cases that highlights the increasing willingness of a majority of justices to acknowledge the relevance of international law in deciding U.S. constitutional law issues. Six of the justices-including Justices Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor-support using references to international law in decisions. Three justices are against the trend.

In 2002, in Atkins v. Virginia, the Court struck down the death penalty for executing mentally retarded people, finding that the rest of the world's overwhelming disapproval is a relevant factor in determining that the practice is "truly unusual" in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The three justices in the minority—William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas—took issue with the majority's consideration of international practice.

The following year, in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy cited a decision by the European Court of Human Rights for support in his landmark decision upholding gay rights: "The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries." Justice Scalia in his dissent wrote that the court should not "impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans."

Victor Streib, a professor at Claude W. Pettit College of Law at Ohio Northern University, points to international law and comparative law as among the factors to be considered in evaluating whether or not the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" now prohibit juvenile executions in the United States. "The international law issue is that customary international law—jus cogens—now prohibits the death penalty for juveniles, putting the United States in violation of international law," he said. The comparative law issue is that the United States, compared to other countries, "is completely out of step with the rest of the world on this issue, causing many to ponder whether the United States is wrong on this issue."

Many in the international community agree that the overwhelming opposition against the juvenile death penalty has reached the status of a jus cogens norm. Under article 53 of the Vienna Convention, a jus cogens norm is "a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character."

Ignoring the international consensus is particularly difficult, said Professor de la Vega, for those justices who have spent time abroad with their foreign counterparts. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, O'Connor, and Kennedy have met extensively with judges in Europe, and Justice Kennedy has met with Chinese judges in China and the United States. Justice O'Connor also has been active in the American Bar Association's reform initiative in Eastern Europe.

Justice Ginsberg, who said during the oral arguments in Roper that for the United States to lead, it must "show a decent respect for the opinions of mankind," told the American Constitution Society in 2003 that the Court is beginning to broaden its perspective beyond the nation's borders. "Our island or lone-ranger mentality is beginning to change," she said. The justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives."

Whether Justice Ginsberg is correct remains to be seen. Until the Supreme Court hands down its decision, the world can only watch and wait.