Justice System Juvi Death Penalty

Justice System Juvi Death Penalty

In Roper v. Simmons the Supreme Court of the U.S. struck down the juvenile death penalty, making it unconstitutional for any American body including state and federal justice systems to utilize the death penalty in any penalty phase of a trial that's defendant was younger than 18 at the time of the commitment of the crime that warrants the death penalty. The court in the majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy stated that the decision was heavily weighted by international legal opinion.

The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions." -- Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in Roper v. Simmons (1)"[T]his Nation's evolving understanding of human dignity certainly is neither wholly isolated from, nor inherently at odds with, the values prevailing in other countries. On the contrary, we should not be surprised to find congruence between domestic and international values, especially where the international community has reached clear agreement -- expressed in international law or in the domestic laws of individual countries -- that a particular form of punishment is inconsistent with fundamental human rights..." -- Justice O'Connor, discussing the relevance of foreign sources of law in her dissenting opinion in Roper v. Simmons (2)

Calabresi, and Zimdahl 743)

Though there is clear dissent in and outside the court with regard to the idea that the legal system of the U.S. should be highly swayed with regard to international laws and opinions there is a clear historical sense that such information does sway the courts on every level and some would say as society progresses there will be changing views on many issues, with regard to ethics. In fact in a report ofn the juvenile death penalty, there is a statement about the issue as one that is an American issue, as many nations have removed the practice as a result of UN resolutions pertaining to the rights of children. "The death penalty for juvenile offenders has become a uniquely American practice, in that it has been abandoned legally by nations everywhere else due to the express provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and of several other international treaties and agreements." (Streib, online) Just prior to the ruling in Roper v. Simmons 2005 Streib's mainly statistical article points out the best legal arguments for the eradication of juvenile death sentences.

The most promising legal arguments in courts today are:

that the death penalty for juvenile offenders and mentally retarded offenders should be treated the same under the Eighth Amendment;

that the death penalty for juvenile offenders violates the state's constitutional protections; and that the death penalty for juvenile offenders violates international law. (Streib online)

Regardless of the source of the ethical view there is rising tides that express the evolving attitude that the death penalty, in any case is not a deterrent and is ethically wrong, regardless of the crime or the circumstances of it. The ethical implications of this ruling clearly create issues surrounding age of consent, as the determining factor of the decision, if an individual is not of the age to consent to vote, joint the military, or even buy alcohol, cigarettes or even a lottery ticket in most states they should therefore not be of the age to consent to an understanding of or a level of lethal responsibility for their violent actions.