The U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday to rule on the legality of juvenile executions, a decision that may lead to an eventual ban similar to the Court’s decision to outlaw death sentences for the mentally retarded two years ago.
The justices agreed to put on their next term’s docket the case of a 17-year-old Missouri man sentenced to death for pushing a woman off a bridge after binding her face and hands with duct tape in 1993. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in August 2003 that the defendant should not be executed because “a national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders,” making juvenile death sentences a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishment.
Last year the U.S. Supreme Court rejected hearing a case challenging juvenile death sentences. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer dissented on the decision not to hear the case, arguing that, in their opinion, “The practice of executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society.”
Some constitutional law experts believe the Court’s decision to hear the case could mean that someone on the bench has decided to join the block of four liberal justices opposed to juvenile executions and vote with them to outlaw the practice.
“The fact that they took the case might hint that there are five votes to strike down the practice,” University of Wisconsin constitutional law professor Howard Schweber said.
The constitutional issue at play in the current case is whether executing a juvenile exceeds the Eighth Amendment’s limitations on “cruel and unusual” punishment. Opponents of capital punishment argue that the death penalty should be reserved for only the most heinous criminals, a standard for which juveniles are exempt.
“Juveniles may be culpable and responsible, but they are not the worst of the worst,” Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said.
However, John McAdams, associate political science professor at Marquette University, argues that since the United States allows juveniles to be tried and sent to prison as adults, the rules should be no different concerning the death penalty. He claims that the arbitrariness with which society assigns certain age standards, such as allowing underage girls to have abortions without parental consent, is more morally questionable than giving juveniles the death sentence.
“I have more moral qualms with allowing a 14-year-old to have an abortion than putting a 16-year-old to death because the fetus didn’t do anything, but the 16-year-old did,” McAdams said.
States that currently allow death penalty sentences for juveniles impose the punishment on individuals who were 16 or 17 at the time they committed the crime.
Although the Court is not close to outlawing the death penalty anytime soon, the justices do hold that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive punishment should be constantly revised depending on modern interpretation of what constitutes “cruel and unusual.”
“The Eighth Amendment is an evolving standard of decency,” Dieter said.
The definition of “cruel and unusual” has received increased attention from the highest court as of late, particularly with its 2002 ban on the executions of individuals with mental retardation in a 6-3 decision.
