 | |  |
 |
|
|
|
Juvenile
Death Penalty Among Cases to Be Heard in New Supreme Court Term |
Posted:
10.04.04
|
|
|
The Supreme Court begins its new session this week with a full
rundown of controversial cases to consider, including teens and
the death penalty, medical marijuana, and the use of drug sniffing
dogs during traffic stops.
Printer-friendly versions: HTML
/ PDF
|
|
|
|
|
Is capital punishment a good deterrent
or cruel and unusual punishment when imposed on people who commit
crimes as teenagers? Is the United States -- one of only a few countries
that allows teens to face the death penalty -- behind the times
or a leader in crime prevention?
 These,
and many other legal questions, will be answered by the Supreme
Court in its 2004/2005 session scheduled to begin on Monday.
"This is already shaping up to be a very important year
for criminal law," said Supreme Court reporter Jan Crawford
Greenburg. The juvenile death penalty issue, she noted, is an
"enormously controversial issue that comes on the heels of
their ruling two years ago that the government could not execute
mentally retarded criminals."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roper v.
Simmons |
|
|
|
|
|
In considering the juvenile death penalty, the Supreme Court
will revisit its own 1988 ruling that executing anyone under the
age of 16 was unconstitutional. That ruling did not extend to
older juveniles between the ages of 16 and 18.
In 1986, 17-year-old Christopher Simmons was accused of raping
and killing a woman in Missouri. A lower court in the state convicted
Simmons and sentenced him to death. In 2003, the Missouri Supreme
Court overturned Simmons' sentence, ruling that the execution
of 16- and 17-year-old murderers was unconstitutional.
Now the court must decide whether to treat these juveniles like
those 15 and younger or should they face the same punishment as
adults.
|
|
|
|
Factors affecting
the court's decision |
|
|
|
|
|
As part of the review, the Supreme Court justices will focus
on several key questions: Does the 8th Amendment of the Constitution
that bars "cruel and unusual" punishment prevent the
execution of juveniles? Does the fact that most states now bar
the execution of juveniles, mean that the country as a whole is
moving away from the juvenile death penalty? If so, would the
practice qualify as "unusual" and therefore compel the
High Court to outlaw it?
 Another
factor the judges might consider is whether the views of the international
community should have an impact on the United States? According
to the human rights group Amnesty International, since 2000 the
only countries, besides the United States, to execute juvenile
offenders were Iran, Pakistan, China and the Democratic Republic
of Congo. China and Pakistan have since abolished the juvenile
death penalty.
Four members of the Court, Justices Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
and Stevens are expected to favor outlawing the death penalty
for juveniles-- Stevens having once called it a "shameful
practice." Justices Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist have ruled
in the past that the death penalty serves as deterrent in preventing
criminal acts.
The outcome is expected to hinge on two judges: Justices O'Connor
and Kennedy, whose centrist views on many issues will play a key
role in many of this year's decisions.
The Court is set to hear arguments in the case on Oct. 13.
|
|
|
|
Other cases
on the docket |
|
|
|
|
|
Also as part of the 2004/2005 session, which runs from Oct. 4
to June 16, 2005, the Supreme Court will hear cases involving
 federal
sentencing guidelines, specifically whether a judge has the right
to impose a stiffer sentence on a criminal over a jury's recommended
sentence; the use of drug-sniffing dogs during routine traffic
stops; and the right of Congress to pass a law restricting the
use of marijuana for medical purposes.
The nine justices have been together now for more than ten years
-- making this the longest running court since the early 19th
century.
--
Compiled for NewsHour Extra by Kristina Nwazota
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American schools and financial aid should be only for legal citizens of the United States. There should be no exceptions to this.
