Roper v. Simmons by Renna McNair https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2 2005 Supreme Court Case en-us 2020-11-18 16:10:55 UTC 2025-04-28 14:57:06 UTC hello@padlet.com Rehnquist Court rmcnai7386 https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/937471213 Chief Justice:
                 William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: 
  • Antonin Scalia
  • Sandra Day O'Connor
  • Clarence Thomas
  • Anthony Kennedy
  • John Paul Stevens
  • David Souter
  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg
  • Stephen Breyer

]]> 2020-11-18 16:21:00 UTC https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/937471213 Background Information rmcnai7386 https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/939090510
  • Christopher Simmons, age 17,  was sentenced to death in 1993.
  • A series of rejected appeals to state and federal courts, lasting until 2002
  • In 2002 the U.S Supreme Court ruled that the executing of the mentally disabled violated the 14th Amendment (Atkins v. Virginia)
  • Because of this ruling the Missouri Supreme Court decided to reconsider Simmons' case. 
    • ]]>     2020-11-18 22:16:28 UTC https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/939090510     Lower Court rmcnai7386 https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/939131001 The Lower Court in this case was the Supreme Court of Missouri

    Ultimately, the Missouri Court decided, 6 - 3, that the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentucky (which validated the execution of minors) was no longer valid. The court held that national opinion regarding the death penalty had changed. The final decision was that the execution of minors was now unconstitutional. ]]>     2020-11-18 22:33:37 UTC https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/939131001     Oral Arguments rmcnai7386 https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/939148948                      Petitioner: 
    • Missouri Supreme Court rejected the holding and rationale of Supreme Court Case Stanford v. Kentucky, a case by which they were bound.
    • The Supreme Court should stand by their decision in Stanford
    • It should be in the hands of legislators to determine the precise minimum age for capital punishment 
    • It should also be in the hands of jurors to determine the culpability of individual defendants above that minimum age
    • The Missouri Court went beyond its powers to question the distinction of age, which was an element of culpability analysis. 


                         Respondent:
    • Where does the contemporaneous society draw the line of evolving standards of decency?
    • Since the case of Stanford, new scientific evidence has emerged which changes the way the constitution is interpreted.
    • The Society has concluded that 18 is the bright line between childhood and adulthood. But with respect to executions, that line is very robust and very deep
    • The United States is alone in the world in its justification of executions for 17-year-olds
    ]]>     2020-11-18 22:41:37 UTC https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/939148948     Question of the Supreme Court and the Answer rmcnai7386 https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/939227698 Question: 
    Does the execution of minors violate the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" found in the Eighth Amendment and applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment?

    Answer: 
    Yes it does and it is applied to the states. The standards of decency have evolved so that executing minors is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The court decided against juvenile death penalty among state legislatures. ]]>     2020-11-18 23:20:21 UTC https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/939227698     Opinion of the Court rmcnai7386 https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/939236331 Majority of Opinion: By Anthony Kennedy
    • The standards of decency have evolved so that executing minors is cruel and unusual
    •  The Court pointed to "overwhelming" international opinion against the juvenile death penalty. 


    ]]>     2020-11-18 23:25:01 UTC https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/939236331     Dissenting and Concurring Opinions rmcnai7386 https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/943050992 Dissenting:
    Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Clarence Thomas
    • Cited Stanford v. Kentucky to claim that "so little has changed"

    Concurring:
    Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy,  Stephen Breyer and David Souter
    • Cited Stanford v. Kentucky as well, but to support evolving standards of decency. 
    ]]>     2020-11-19 19:18:36 UTC https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/943050992     Significance rmcnai7386 https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/943103915 This  Court case established that children under the age of 18 could not suffer the death penalty. It overturned the ruling of Stanford v. Kentucky, which held that the execution of minors was not unconstitutional.

    Because it overruled a previous Court ruling, thus setting a new precedent for questions regarding minors and the death penalty, Roper v. Simmons is an example of Judicial Activism. ]]>     2020-11-19 19:29:09 UTC https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/943103915     Video Clip Summary/Description rmcnai7386 https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/943215548 https://www.c-span.org/video/?183896-2/supreme-court-juvenile-death-penalty]]> 2020-11-19 19:53:37 UTC https://padlet.com/rmcnai7386/95ko86i1dlft0wi2/wish/943215548