Roper V. Simmons Case Study

Christopher Simmons was charged with burglary and the murder of Shirley Crook. He and his two friends plotted to break into her home rob and murder her. One of his friends decided not to go through with the plot, but his other friend helped. They went in the middle of the night into her home bound her and threw her over the bridge. At trial with the evidence, videotaped confession from Simmons, and the testimony against him from his friend proving that it was a premeditated plan the jury recommended a death sentence. He appealed his case with counsel and felt his past history of a clean record and his troubled background should have been a factor in the sentencing. Simmons’s case worked its way to the courts and it was eventually overturned. According to Birckhead (2008), “With its decision in Roper v. Simmons,11 invalidating the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were younger than eighteen when their crimes were committed,12 the Court has, perhaps, heralded yet another shift in the perspective of the legal system-and the culture at large-towards adolescents who commit crimes”(p.389). The Supreme Court ruled that the punishment now violates the Eighth Amendment 's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, they sentenced Simmons to life imprisonment without parole.

The Juvenile justice system has changed over the years. Before the first establishment of this system, courts and judges treated juveniles as adults and sometimes received the same punishment as adults. For many years, there were debates on if children before the age of 21 were responsible for their actions seeing as they aren’t fully capable of understanding their actions. This murder of Jamie Bulger created an uproar all over the world on children at such a young age know right from wrong and also violence. Backgrounds, and family upbringing and violence in the media had played a

Roper, the sentencing of minors would be legal, constitutional and uphold Stanford v. Kentucky; conversely, if the court ruled in favor of the defendant Christopher Simmons, the death sentence of both Simmons and all future juvenile convicts would be considered “cruel and unusual” according to the Eighth Amendment and effectively overturn Stanford v. Kentucky.

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 this case, the child in suspect would be given life without parole which they believe would lead to other serious issues. For many years now, it has been an ongoing debate on how juveniles who commit crimes should be tried for what they have committed. Juveniles who have commited murder should not be tried as adults because of the many factors that may have influenced the way they’ve acted. First of all, children are easily affected by the environment they’re in and what they are learning while growing up. “Given this delicate-and drastic-reshaping of the brain, teens need all the help they can get to steer their development onto the right path” (Thompson, p.).

Should not be charged Young,and dumb. Alonze Thomas robbed a store when he was 15,because he was told to,and he got 13 years,even though nobody got killed. When Juveniles commit violent crimes they should not be charged as an adult,because they are to young,there brain is not fully developed,and they are easily influenced. Juveniles should not be charged as adults,because they are to young. In the article “Kids are Kids...by Marjie Lundstrom” states ¨It’s why they can't smoke,or drink,or go to rated r movies without are ok.

One of the arguments against the decision in Roper v. Simmons is that it took society’s ever-changing stance on issues and policies (Oyez, n.d.) Before the decision in Atkins v. Virginia, I would have been a part of the dissent, but considering mental health and its role in committing the crime (Oyez, n.d.) Children and teenagers have growing minds and there is a theory that the mind never fully develops until age 25. Taking that into account they are not mentally there with adults and in the eyes of some can be mentally disabled. I would have been in the majority and agree that it is unconstitutional for the death penalty of minors.

We can't try juveniles in adult court or house these juveniles with adults. We can't hang juveniles. If a 17 year old boy committed murder and we couldn't try him as an adult because he is still under age. Therefore he would only have to be in a juvenile home until he turns 18. People play the system like that all the time because they know they can get away with it without consequences.

If I were a Supreme Court justice in the case of Roper v. Simmons, I would have voted with the dissent due to a multitude of factors beginning with Simmons’ premeditation. Simmons expressed to a couple of friends that he desired to commit a murder, and he provided a sequence of how he wished to carry out his crime (Cornell University Law School, 2005). Furthermore, the details he provided to his friends were callous and calculated furthering his culpability in the commission of murder. Since we understand Simmons planned to commit a murder, let us analyze the next factor, which was Simmons’ age at the time of the crime.

Another argument from those opposed to putting juveniles on trial as adults is that juveniles are incapable to plan and see the consequences. In 1993 a seventeen year old Christopher Simmons and his friend robbed, bound, and gagged then pushed into a river Shirley Crook who then drowned to death in the river. Having robbed and bound the victim showed a plan that the two juveniles created because they had the materials to bind the woman and the idea to rob her of possessions before killing her. The prosecutor of the two teens, George McElroy, said “Seventeen. Isn’t that scary? Doesn’t that scare you? Mitigating? Quite the contrary, I submit. Quite the contrary.”(Liptak pg.2) Another example of a teen showing the ability to

If a juvenile, over fourteen has the ability and willingness to commit a violent crime they should be tried and punished as an adult. A fourteen year old knows right from wrong. He (or she) is able to tell whether they are committing a crime. If a juvenile is mature enough to commit an adult crime, they should be treated as an adult, and punished justly according to the adult law. The difference in age in two people should not determine their punishment if they have committed the same crime under the same or similar pretenses.

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

Christopher Simmons was not your typical American teenager. Abused and neglected as a young boy, by the time he was seventeen years old he came a convicted murderer and was sentenced to the death penalty. His case quickly became under fire for overriding his Eighth Amendment right that stated that the federal government cannot impose cruel and unusual punishment upon anyone. Christopher Simmons was old enough and mature enough to understand that what he did was morally and socially wrong. If someone can completely conjure up a murder plot by oneself, then they should be sentenced to the death penalty no matter the age. Simmons should have received the death penalty despite his age at the time of the crime he

Teenage murders get classified into degrees according to their actions. The state categorizes them into “first, second and possibly third degree” but usually many teens fall into the first degree (The History of Juvenile Justice). The first degree consists of “killing of a child by the use of unreasonable force, killing committed in a pattern of domestic abuse, murder of a law enforcement officer, and homicides occurring in the commission of other crimes such as arson, rape, robbery or other violent crimes”(First Degree Murder). Despite this, teenager’s get judged differently because they are younger and not considered adults yet. Being said, the court will decide what to do with the teen because they “can’t get a sentence with life in prison” even if they had done something very harsh (Cohen). They can’t get a sentence because they are categorized as less culpable than other criminals. In fact, there is said to be people who are incapable of committing a crime. To hold someone accountable for a crime there had to be two things involved. First of all, “the person had to have a vicious will” to commit crime and secondly “the person had to commit an unlawful act” in order to be accused (The History of Juvenile Justice). However, the teen does get judged and the state can forfeiture some of the most basic liberties, but they don’t have the right to do anything harsh with the teen. The U.S Supreme Court had