The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United Kingdom

The case involved Simmons, a 17-year-old who had planned and committed murder, which amounted to the criminal offense. Upon turning 18, he was sentenced to death. Simmons made appeals and petitions for the state and federal, relying on the previous conviction, which was all rejected. The plaintiff then files for postconviction release relying on Atkins v. Virginia. The primary issue in the case was whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of the death penalty on the offenders under the age of 18 ( Justia Law, 2020 ). The case was argued in 2004, and the ruling made in 2005. In its ruling, the court challenged the legality of capital punishment for those under 18. Relying on the Eighth Amendment that offers protection against "cruel and unusual punishment," the court overturned the ruling of the lower courts. The death sentence conviction was set aside by the court and replaced with life imprisonment. The court noted that even though Stanford v. Kentucky had ruled that capital offense was not unconstitutional, the judges held that there had been a national consensus that has developed on the matter since then. The dissenting judges, however, questioned the relevancy of "national consensus." They held that the most crucial question was whether the execution could be considered cruel and unusual. At the time of the case,30 states had prohibited the juvenile death penalty while 12 had prohibited any death penalty ( Justia Law, 2020 ). The remaining eight states were still practicing the law. It is on this ground that the 30 states had banned juvenile capital punishment. The judges used this to reach a national consensus that it was unconstitutional to subject the juvenile to capital punishment for the offenses committed when they were under 18. The Eighth Amendment of the constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It is required that this amendment draws its meaning from the evolving standards of decency. This marks the progress of a society that is maturing. In the case decision, the judges ruled that the evolving standards of decency make capital punishment for juveniles cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. The "evolving standards of decency," in this case meant that the society was progressively maturing, making certain kinds of punishments to be regarded as being cruel and unusual. As society evolves, what is considered decent acts also continue to change. Under the scientific research, the juveniles are considered to lack maturity and are more likely to engage in irresponsible behaviors. Juveniles, therefore, more vulnerable to get into crime, and the capital offense may be an indecent way to punish them. Juveniles should not be subjected to capital punishment because, unlike adults, juveniles are more exposed to risks of getting into criminal behavior. The juveniles are more vulnerable to crimes due to the lack of maturity and increased risks of irresponsible behavior. Besides, the juveniles are more vulnerable to the negative influence of peer pressure. They are less likely to exercise self-control in their surrounding as compared to adults. Due to these vulnerabilities, the juveniles should not be subjected to capital punishment. It is on this ground that 30 states had prohibited the use of capital offense in juveniles. Instead, they should be subjected to other forms of punishment, such as life imprisonment, depending on the magnitude of the crime committed. The constitutional jurisprudence, in this case, was first highlighted in many of the controversies. The case presented the first use of the concept of evolving "national consensus" to argue on the juvenile capital offense. In this case, the interpretation was based on scientific research about the ability of juveniles to control their criminal behavior. The court, relying on the behavioral and research studies, noted that the 30 states prohibited using capital offenses. Due to immaturity and irresponsibility of the defendants, the voting and serving on the juries were banned for the juveniles in all states. The judges used the same view in the case to rule that capital offense for the minors was cruel and unusual. The Roper V. Simmons made a ruling that prohibited the use the capital punishment for juveniles. The judges relied on the Eighth Amendment of the constitution and the application of the evolving standards of decency. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling had a significant impact on the death row of the prisoners and the subsequent cases. Besides overturning the death sentence Simmons, it also led to its cancelation to other 72 defendants for the crimes that they had committed while under 18 years. The major effect of this ruling was in Texas and Alabama, where 29 and 14 offenders were affected. This case still plays a significant role even today. Even as the issue of the capital offense remains controversial, most states have abolished it for juvenile offenders. It has remained a precedent that is referred to by judges when making rulings on matters of juvenile capital punishment. Before this case, there had been over 22 executions since 1976, with most cases being in Texas. 

References 

Justia Law. (2020 ). Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) . Justia Law. (2020). Retrieved 21 May 2020, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/ .