U.S. Supreme Court Case Analysis: Case Study Essay

Roper v. Simmons is a court case that managed to progress all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. This case dealt with the issue of whether or not it is constitutional for someone to be given the death penalty when they committed a crime under the age of eighteen. Christopher Simmons brought this dilemma to light when he planned and committed a capital murder at age seventeen. In 1993 Missouri, Simmons, along with two other friends – fifteen-year-old Charles Benjamin and sixteen-year-old John Tessmer – plotted to kill Shirley Crook by breaking and entering her home. This sudden desire to murder her began when Simmons and Crook became involved in a car accident. Simmons convinced his friends to go along with his plan and assured them that they would be able to get away with the crime since they were under eighteen. Their plan was to tie her up and throw her off a bridge and eventually rob her. However, when the three met up at around 2 a.m., Tessmer decided not to follow through with it, leaving just Simmons and Benjamin left to commit the offense. The remaining two broke into the victim’s house by reaching through “an open window and unlocking the back door” (Kennedy), where they proceeded to achieve their murderous intention.

There wasn’t any indication or knowledge of what happened to Shirley Crook until the afternoon of September 9, when her husband Steven Crook returned from an overnight trip and found his house in disarray and his wife gone. Steven called the police immediately and reported that his wife was missing. Later that afternoon, fishermen were able to recover her body from a river. The police had no suspects at the time until word got around that Christopher Simmons had some involvement. Simmons was bragging to his friends about killing a woman, and when the police were informed of this, he was arrested and brought to the police station. Simmons confessed to the police that he killed Shirley Crook and agreed to perform a reenactment of the crime on video.

Steps Before Reaching the Supreme Court

Before making it to the U.S. Supreme Court, Simmons’s case went to trial. He was charged with burglary, kidnapping, stealing, and murder in the first degree by the State. Since Simmons was seventeen at the time of the offense, he was “outside the criminal jurisdiction of the Missouri juvenile court system” (Kennedy) and thus tried as an adult. The State wanted Simmons to receive the death penalty and brought along everything that could incriminate him to the trial. The State took the victim’s family members to the stand to show the jury how much they have been affected by Crook’s death. Simmons's attorneys, on the other hand, brought an officer from the Missouri juvenile justice system and Simmons’s family to show how Simmons had no prior convictions and also how compassionate he is with his family.

The jury’s final decision was in favor of the State and believed Simmons should receive the death penalty, and the judge agreed. After the ruling, Simmons acquired new counsel who went to the trial court to “set aside the conviction and sentence” (Kennedy). The trial court, however, denied the counsel and agreed with the judgment of the previous ruling. Simmons tried again and again for an appeal but was denied every time. It wasn’t until 2002 when the Missouri Supreme Court decided to delay Simmons’s execution as the U.S. Supreme Court was deciding a similar case of whether or not to give a mentally disabled person the death penalty – Atkins v. Virginia.

The Missouri Supreme Court reconsidered Simmons’s case after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for a mentally disabled person to be executed was in violation of cruel and unusual punishment. After recognizing the change in America’s societal views on minor executions, the Missouri Supreme Court denied the ruling of giving Simmons the death penalty and instead gave him life in prison without parole. The State of Missouri, not liking the court’s ruling, appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they agreed to hear it.

Arguments

The Roper v. Simmons case was argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on October 13, 2004. The petitioner was Donald P. Roper who was represented by James R. Layton, and the respondent was Christopher Simmons who was represented by Seth P. Waxman. Layton begins his argument by stating how the Missouri Supreme Court disregarded a previous ruling that occurred during another U.S. Supreme Court case similar to Simmons’s, Stanford v. Kentucky, a case that approved the enforcement of executing minors who were at least sixteen or seventeen years old when they committed the crime. Layton goes on to say how the Missouri Supreme Court compared their ruling with that of the Atkins v. Virginia one when they were of completely different circumstances. The Atkins case dealt with the issue of being mentally disabled when committing a capital offense, and the Missouri Supreme Court took this into consideration but went beyond the borders of the level of maturity that was being questioned. Layton argues that some people at age seventeen already have the maturity that can be found in others who are older. If a seventeen-year-old is able to do most things on their own, then he is aware of his actions and what is acceptable or not.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Waxman, on the other hand, begins his argument by asking what the minimum age is for someone to be given the death penalty – should they commit a capital offense – if our society’s standards keep evolving. He goes on to say how our society has agreed that eighteen is the age at which childhood and adulthood are drawn. If someone is eighteen or younger, then they are still immature. However, when executions are being questioned for them, it is a very heavy topic and needs careful deliberation. Waxman also talks about how science plays a role in minors and their actions. There is scientific evidence that proves people below the age of seventeen do not have the level of maturity older ones do, so juveniles should not receive the same kind of punishment as someone who is older would get themselves.

Decisions

Majority

After hearing each side of the petitioner and respondent’s case, the U.S. Supreme Court evidently came to a decision on March 1, 2005. It was a 5-4 decision in favor of Waxman and Simmons. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid the execution of offenders who were younger than eighteen when the crime occurred. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority which included himself, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens, JJ. Kennedy stated that when minors commit a horrific offense, the State is allowed to relinquish some of the offender’s basic liberties but cannot decide whether or not to execute him. The Court made its decisions based on the evolving standards of our nation and the rejection of juvenile death penalties in thirty states is proof that there is a national agreement against the old view of killing minors.

Minority

The minority opinion was expressed by Justice O’Connor and Justice Scalia, along with Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist. O’Connor believed that there was not a significant maturity difference between adults and juveniles that would justify excluding juveniles from the death penalty. He also believed that since eight states had considered executing sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, juvenile execution should be considered everywhere. Scalia, on the other hand, thought the majority opinion substituted their own beliefs with that of the people, and criticized them for counting non-death penalty states toward an overall agreement against juvenile executions. Both agree, however, that in the end, the Missouri Supreme Court should have followed the ruling of the Atkins v. Kentucky case.

Concurring

There was also a concurring opinion from Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg. Stevens explained that their ruling today reaffirms the Court’s interpretation of the Eight Amendment. However, he believes that if the Eighth Amendment had been ‘frozen’ when it was originally drafted, it would impose no restriction to executing seventeen-year-olds today.

Effects on American Society

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision has somewhat affected American society today. Before this ruling, there were only eight states – out of fifty – that executed juveniles after they committed a capital offense. These juveniles, additionally, were only between the ages of sixteen and seventeen. This case and decision only affected a small number of convicted offenders, however, this was still an impactful thing for many people. So far, there have been seventy-two juvenile offenders in twelve states that have been affected by the Court’s Roper v. Simmons ruling. Although this seems like a meager number, it is still seventy-two kids that won’t be getting killed because of what they did. Whether it was intentional or not, the government and states will now not have to make life-or-death decisions for kids who did such a heinous crime. All they would need to do is give them whatever punishment is fit and keep them away from society for a while.

My Opinion

My opinion on this court case is very similar to that of the majority opinions. I do believe that people under the age of eighteen should not be given the death penalty, even if they committed a horrific crime like murdering someone. They are still kids who need to be rehabilitated instead of being thrown away by society, not worthy of any help. Especially if they have never committed any type of capital offense before. We, as a society, should not just look into what they have done, but also what led them to do that. We should know what their home environment was like, their mental health history, and any tragic events they’ve witnessed or gone through themselves so we can help them. Although people at the age of sixteen and seventeen should be aware of their actions and any consequences that come with them by now, they still should be given a second chance. We should not murder people who have murdered others, because that fixes nothing, and in the end, we are only contradicting ourselves.