Roper v Simmons GVPT 331 PDF

Preview

Summary

Roper v simmons...

Description

1

ROPER V. SIMMONS David Hodges Hicks GVPT 331 8/19/16 University Of Maryland

2

The Roper V. Simmons court case took place in the year 2004. However, the case was sparked by a situation that occurred in early 1993, where Christopher Simmons, a minor, age 17 killed a female victim, Shirley Crook (Scott, 2005). Christopher had planned the murder in detail based on the fact that his actions were guided systematically in accordance with his plans. Christopher illegally broke in to the house of Shirley Crook in 1993 where he robbed her belongings, tied her up then later threw her over on a nearby bridge to her death. After conducting the vilent crime, Simmons was arrested afterward, followed by a short trial where he was found guilty on all charges. Thus, the court sentenced Christopher to capital punishment(The death penalty). Despite this, Simmons responded to the charges through filling an appeal on the death execution penalty about his status, being a minor. Therefore, the Roper V. Simmons court case dealt with minor law. Additionally, Christopher Simmons believed to the fact that he did not deserve the capital punishment bestowed on him because he committed the crime at a minor age and should not have been treated as an adult. According to the juvenile law, individuals who are yet to attain the adult age are not subject to various criminal punishments. However, the ruling on the Roper V. Simmons case was delivered about the previous Stanford v. Kentucky. The Stanford v. Kentucky case took place in 1989 whereby the court ruled that minors can be subject to the capital punishment under the circumstances that the stipulated charges warrant execution. About the court findings, it was established that capital punishment sentences on minors at the age of 16 and 17 do not infringe the rights stipulated within the 8th amendment. This case challeneged the ruling and precedents set by an older case. The trial of the Roper V. Simmons case took place in January 2004 through the initiation of the Supreme Court by Christopher Simmons based on the fact that he thought the previous ruling on death sentence violated the rights awarded to him within the 8th amendment (Feld,

3

2008). According to the amendment in the United States, the Constitution offers protection against penalties considered as of being unusual or cruel. The Roper V. Simmons case was decided on 1st March 2005. The case was conducted in the United States Supreme Court featuring the defendant Christopher Simmons while the plaintiff was the acting prosecutor from the Missouri state, Roper (Scott, 2005). The Supreme Court ruled

in favor ofChristopher

Simmons, whereby the United States Supreme Court stipulated that a death sentence to a minor was cruel and considered as an unusual type of punishment. According to the ruling by the Supreme Court, it was established that a death sentence to a minor was a violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments. In reference to the opinion of the majority, Justice Kennedy states that when a heinous crime is committed by a juvenile offender, the state is obliged to exact forfeiture on some basic liberties, but the state is not gratified to extinguish the life or potential of the offender to attain a clear understanding of his/her humanity (Certiorari to the Supreme Court Of Missouri, 2005). This court ruling was cited about adolescent’s research finding that outline a child’s brain is still developing hence incapable of having the judgment ability of an adult. Additionally, the ruling of the Stanford v. Kentucky case established in 1989 was overturned by the United States Supreme Court. Natural law can be identified as a legal theory that recognizes the existence of a connection between morality and law. Morality relates to what is good or bad and to what might be termed as of being right or wrong. According to natural law theorists, it is believed that the human laws have been defined concerning morality instated of an authoritative figure such as a government or a king (Kainz, 2004). Thus, humans are guided by the human nature enhanced with the capability of figuring out what the laws pertain to so as to act in conformity to the specified laws. Natural law has been derived from the notion that human morality arises from

4

nature. Thus everything in nature has a given purpose, not excluding humans. According to the natural law theorists, our aim is to live a happy life despite the fact that our actions go against the may go directly against that purpose. Thus, measures that prevent another human being from living a good, happy life are identified as immoral or unnatural. On the other hand, laws are characterized by its capability to provide justice. From natural’s law perspective, a law that does not provide justice is considered as of being unjust. Basically, no one should follow a law that is seen as flawed whereby a moral law should be termed as of being good while a good law can be identified as being moral. In a nutshell a law may be a law, but just because it is law, does not mean it is legitimate. The ruling arrived by the majority in the United States Supreme Court on the Roper V. Simmons case was a delivery of justice. Natural law says, happiness is good for us human beings characterized by the capability of living a flourishing life. Despite this, flourishing entails our ability to fulfill our distinctive nature through doing what is best for fellow humans. The heinous act committed by Christopher Simmons was a clear infringement of the moral rights stated clearly within the peramiters natural law. However, a capital punishment on the offender does not stand out as a clear justification of his wrong doings (Feld, 2008). The initial death sentence is unnatural which is contrary to the natural law. The idea of natural law begins with a basic belief signifying that ever human has the right to live their life. The murderous act committed by Christopher was contrary to the natural law. However, the death sentence handed against him is a further violation of the natural law based on the fact that his capability to live a flourishing life enhanced through the fulfillment of his distinctive nature is being grabbed away. Despite this, a death penalty for such a crime would not restore parity with the victim but further deteriorate the responsibilities of our legal system to reform criminals. Ultimately Justice cannot be arrived

5

through the death sentence as it is an act of immorality, thus considered unnatural, especially for a minor. (George, N.d.). Conversely, natural law theorists believe that human morality entirely comes from nature thus, everything has a purpose including humans. As stated by the majority opinion, the Supreme Court cited in context to the adolescent research findings that not only a child’s body but also their brains are yet to develop, thus their judgment level cannot be compared to that of adults (Certiorari to the Supreme Court Of Missouri, 2005). Despite this, children are associated with a diminished capability to assess risks to establish the consequences relating to their actions. Furthermore, it was cited by the court in comparison to adults, children are more vulnerable to peer pressure characterized with a little power to escape against the harmful environments. Thus, in context to the natural law, the actions portrayed by Christopher Simmons can be systematically identified as of being natural due to his poor judgment level. As stated by Natural law, the goal for humans is the capability of living a happy life thus we do our best to achieve such. Therefore, such proficiencies involves development and the exercising of our individual capacities for the enhancement of deliberative choice, abstract knowledge, imagination and rationality based on the sense of justice within us. Additionally, the moral values of instance temperance, justice, courage and benevolence are all identified as character traits that aid in the fulfillment of an individual’s true nature. Therefore, the life of a murderer is identified as not being good based on the fact that it is characterized by inconsistencies from within the individual’s natural function. The heinous act of immorality conducted by Christopher can be identified to arise from a natural perspective with respect to inefficiencies (i.e. low level of judgment ability which was beyond his control, because he was a child). Unlike Christopher, the court was presided by mature adults who posess the capability of assessing morality in a

6

reasonable fashion. Based on his actions, death penalty on such an individual is a violation of the natural law as his actions can be traced from a natural perspective. Furthermore, as stated by Justice Kennedy (representative for the majority), from a moral perspective, it would be a misguided decision to equate the failings of a teen similar to that of an adult as the minor is characterized by deficiencies depicting a greater possibility for reformation. Conversely, Natural law stands out as a set of truths in reference to morality and justice whereby certain rules must be adhered to lead a flourishing life. Despite this, natural law recognizes that morality and law are deeply connected. Such principles in life are clearly depicted with the unaided human reason. Right and wrong are nothing but all matters of an opinion. Therefore, the heinous act of crime committed by Christopher was a misguided decision arrived at by the minor based on deficiencies that are natural for someone of that age (George, N.d.). However, terming the actions by the accused as of being unnatural does not call for acquit, but rather the delivery of a fair trial with due progression of the law. No one is justifying his actions, as they were despicable, but circumstances should be considered before depriving someone not old enough to buy tobacco, of life.

Roper v. Simmions set the precendent for what is acceptable as punishment for a minor. Although the death penalty is not reongized nationally as a violation of the constitution, in this circumstance it was. The death penalty in this instance was deemed unjust on the basis a person should not be deprived of life, for a criminal act commited while under the age of 18. The court’s opinion stated as follows

7

“the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendmentís prohibition of ìcruel and unusual punishments.î 356 U. S., at 102ñ103 (plurality opinion) (ìThe civilized nations of the world are in virtual unanimity that statelessness is not to be imposed as punishment for crimeî); see also Atkins, supra, at 317, n. 21 (recognizing that ìwithin the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapprovedî)” (543 U.S. ROPER v SIMMONS (2005))

This quote is an exemplification that the death penalty, even in the case of a heinous murder, is an excessive punishment based on an interpretation of the constitution’s 8 th amendment and 14th amendment.

Whether or not the actions committed by Christopher are deemed heinous, the ruling for a death sentence forfeits the opportunity for the minor to reform, and affording him the opportunity to right his wrongs. Despite this, the death of Shirley Crook still stands out as an infringement of the natural law, as Christopher took her opportunity to live a good, happy life by killing her. The actions by Christopher Simmons had not developed morally. The courts deemed his actions of that due to do a non developed moral standing within his natural brain functions, leading him to indulge into immorality with the latter being identified as of being a natural trait. In a nutshell, Furthermore, as stated by the natural law, the good for humans is the capability of living a happy life free of infriignment from others, and thus we do our best to achieve a goal. However, the actions by the offender were misguided by his natural function to make decisive choices, which can be expected for a child, although not to this extent.. That being said, the

8

malicious choice by Christopher Simmons proves beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are naturally culpable of committing actions that are against the stipulated moral virtues. With that being said, through the lens of natural law, this case was absolutely decided correctly; Just because a violation of natural law occurs, does not mean you rectify the situation with violations of natural law.

9

References Certiorari to the Supreme Court Of Missouri (2005). Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center V. Simmons Feld, B. (2008). A Slower Form of Death: Implications of Roper v. Simmons for Juveniles Sentenced to Life Without Parole. University of Minnesota Law School George, P. (N.d.). Natural law. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Kainz, H. (2004). Natural law. Chicago: Open Court. Scott, C. (2005). Roper v. Simmons: Can Juvenile Offenders be Executed http://www.jaapl.org/content/33/4/547.full...