Case Analysis : Roper Vs. Morris

The court decision was influenced by Graham and Roper cases that established for sentencing reasons children are different from adults under the constitution. Children lack maturity and have no developed sense of responsibility. This leads them to be impulsive and reckless. In Roper it was held children are exposed to outside pressure and negative influences from friends. Therefore, they have less control of their environment because the child’s nature is not2 well informed. Graham and Roper emphasized distinguishing traits of children weakening justification for inflicting harsh sentences to juveniles even when they commit outrageous crimes.

Juveniles are the most impressionable beings within society because they are still learning and evolving as they mature. Those that continue along the right path are able to see the fruits of their labor by continuing to go to school and progressing in the right path. However, there are those that choose to enter other areas such as criminal activities and gangs. Prosecuting these individuals only to see them back in the same position some time later is not the ultimate goal of the juvenile justice system. Delinquency prevention and intervention programs are able to mold the juvenile so that they conform to the norms of society and go on to lead productive lives.

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

There are many controversial issues in our world today, and each of those issues is well debated by people who either support it or absolutely loathe it. One of those highly debated controversial issues is the juvenile death penalty. Since the Roper v. Simmons case in 2005, sentencing juveniles to death is considered illegal on the grounds that it violates the Eighth Amendment rights (Babcock 6). Although it is considered illegal in the United States, it is still a highly debated problem. There are people that believe the juvenile death penalty is an effective punishment and should not be illegal. On the other hand, many believe that the juvenile death penalty is an extreme punishment and should not be an option when it comes to sentencing juveniles. With such a critical issue, it is only considered fair to understand both sides opinions about the juvenile death penalty.

The Death Penalty is a controversial topic on its own. However, if you add the possibility of a minor receiving the death penalty it gets even more interesting. The Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons was a perfect example of that. Roper v. Simmons presented the Supreme Court with two questions: 1) whether or not the execution of those who were sixteen or seventeen at the time of a crime is cruel and unusual punished and 2) does is violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. The main audience for this particular case is the general American population, and specifically affects the juvenile population.

Christopher Simmons a 17-year-old junior in high school at the time murdered Shirley Crook, one early September morning (Oyez, p.1). Simmons was briefly acquainted with Crook previously from a past occurring car accident that had involved them both. Furthermore, Christopher did not plan alone how he wanted to accomplish his crimes. Simmons two friends Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, 15 and 16 agreed to aid Simmons in accomplishing his plan due to Simmons insisting they would get away with charges due to being minors (Roper v. Simmons, 2005,p.3). The three friends met around 2am September 9th; however at the last minute Tessmer left the scene, backing out of the murder plan. Nevertheless, Simmons and Benjamin gained access to Crook’s home through a window left open, which allowed them to unlock the back door. Mrs. Crook was in her bedroom at the time and the two juveniles duct taped her: eyes, mouth and hands closed (Roper v.

The Supreme Court ruled that adolescent committed a murder cannot be sentenced to life in prison, because it violated the eighth amendment’s banning of cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling supports the claim that a punishment as such affects the juveniles that are imprisoned mentally and emotionally. Teenagers that committed a murder should not be sentenced with imprisonment to life because, this adolescent are able to be rehabilitated with proper family support.

Roper v. Simmons was a supreme court case that was decided in 2004 which dealt with whether it is against the constitution, and falls under cruel and unusual punishment, the execute someone who is under the age of 18. This case was particularly important as it dealt with something that many people were against entirely: the death penalty. A variation of this issue was decided nearly twenty years earlier in Thompson v. Oklahoma when it was decided in a five-to-three ruling that it was not constitutional to execute anyone under the age of 16. There have also been many other landmark cases that have challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty for certain parties such as in Atkins v. Virginia which was decided just three

Roper vs Simmons was considered a landmark case in 2005 in which the Supreme court chose that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty for crimes that have been committed while under the age of 18. The decision was not unanimous, but was a very close 5-4 voting. The voting overturned a previous ruling that the death penalty cannot be enforced for those who are under the age of 16, but 16 and older can receive capital punishment.

The case of Roper v. Simmons began when a minor, aged seventeen, named Christopher Simmons had commited murder. Simmons was only a junior in high school when he had committed the murder (Kennedy). He discussed everything with his fellow students named Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer prior to the murder (Kennedy). Simmons suggested to commit burglary and murder the victim, Shirley Crook, by breaking into her house (Kennedy). The very next day, early in the morning at 2 A.M., they had met outside of Shirley’s house (Kennedy). Tessmer had double thoughts and he left before the other two went to commit the crime (Kennedy). Simmons and Benjamin entered the victim's home by reaching through an open window and unlocking the back door (Kennedy). As they entered, Simmons turned on the hallway light (Kennedy). This disruption would awaken Mrs. Crook. She had called out for prencen in her home, saying, “ Who’s there?” (Kennedy). Answering her, Simmons entered her bedroom. He had recognized her from a car accident that both of them were involved in (Kennedy). Simmons proceeded to use duct tape to cover her mouth and eyes and also bound her hands. later on Simmons and Charles put Mrs. Crook in her minivan and drove her to a state park

In 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed his case and lowered his sentence to life imprisonment since they believed that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a juvenile to death under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. When the state of Missouri appealed this ruling, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear this case. This hearing overturned a 1989 decision (Stanford v. Kentucky) in which it was suitable for sentence sixteen and seventeen years old to capital punishment (Roper v. Simmons, 2005).

Simmons (2005), the Court ruled “that those under the age of 18 could not be sentenced to the death penalty, holding that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the US Constitution when applied to juveniles (Liles & Moak, 2015, p. 78).” In Roper, the Court addressed issues of juvenile maturity, vulnerability, external influences, development, and culpability. In their holding, the Court cited inherent differences distinct to a juvenile, stating that the juvenile’s culpability must be considered in capital punishment decisions. The decision in Roper exclusively established differences between juveniles and adults for death penalty cases. At this time, juveniles could still be sentenced to life without parole.

Capital punishment for juveniles is one of the most controversial topics to ever be explored in society and in the criminal justice system. The death penalty is a rare occurrence amongst juveniles since it is so arguable as to whether they should be tried as adults. Lynn Cothern from the Juvenile Justice Resource Center suggests that “the primary purpose of the juvenile justice system is to hold juvenile offenders accountable for delinquent acts while providing treatment, rehabilitative services, and programs designed to prevent future involvement in law-violating behavior” (Cothern). The juvenile death penalty has been argued over for centuries and has stirred enough people to still be around today. While juveniles have been known to commit heinous crimes, sentencing a juvenile to death is an inhumane and cruel fate to serve someone who is incapable of making rational lifelong decisions, and should not be allowed in the juvenile justice system.

Regardless of age, a killer is a killer. A killer can be the daily customer you have at your job or the child you’re babysitting. “The Supreme Court justices would be wise as well as compassionate to strike a balance: Make juvenile offenders responsible for their actions but don't completely rob them of hope. And this should apply not only to the inmates who were 14 at the time of their crimes but to the remaining 2,497 who were 15 to 18 years old,” (Ellison 19). Kids make mistakes all the time, that doesn’t mean we should take their life away from them. With overlooking the listed factors in court when sentencing a juvenile, this will improve the number of children in prisons. Not all of these children partake in the act because of evil, but merely because of

I do not think it is a good idea to lock juveniles up in prisons with adults. For a child to set down and plan a murder for instance, there would have to be some kind of deep emotional problem. On the other side of this, if the child knows right from wrong and he can sit down and plan a murder, then you could say if he is old enough to kill someone then he is old enough to die. The juvenile criminal is rooted much deeper than right from wrong. It starts back from when they are small children. Most of them are usually outsiders or outcasts. Who can you hold fault for that other than society? If juveniles don't fit in with the popular kids in school they are considered an