Roper v. Simmons

Roper v. Simmons (2005) was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled on March 1, 2005, that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18, in a 5-4 decision.

Implications

Constitutional Jurisprudence

The majority ruling highlights several controversies in the field of constitutional jurisprudence. The first is the use of the concept of an evolving "national consensus" to allow for the re-interpretation of previous rulings. What constitutes evidence for such a consensus - and from where the judicial branch derives its authority to determine it and implement it into law, a function constitutionally vested in the legislative branch - especially in the case of capital punishment, is unclear at this point. In Roper v. Simmons the majority cited the abolishment of juvenile capital punishment in 32 states (20 of the 38 allowing capital punishment) as evidence of such a consensus. In Atkins v. Virginia it was the "consensus" of the 25 states (13 of 38 allowing capital punishment) that had banned execution of the mildly retarded.

Related Topics:
Constitutional jurisprudence - Atkins v. Virginia

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Another controversy is the role of foreign laws and norms in the interpretation of U.S. law. In 2004 Florida Representative Tom Feeney introduced a

Related Topics:
Florida - Representative

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

non-binding resolution instructing the judiciary to ignore foreign precedent when making their rulings. Said Feeney: "This resolution advises the courts that it is improper for them to substitute foreign law for American law or the American Constitution. To the extent they deliberately ignore Congress' admonishment, they are no longer engaging in 'good behavior' in the meaning of the Constitution and they may subject themselves to the ultimate remedy, which would be impeachment."http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4506232/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Beltway Sniper Case

The implications of this ruling were immediately felt in the State of Virginia, where it is now certain that Lee Boyd Malvo will not face the death penalty. He is responsible in part, along with John Allen Muhammad, for the DC sniper attacks that terrorized the Washington DC area in October 2002 when he was 17 years old. He had already been spared the death penalty in his first trial for the murder of FBI employee Linda Franklin outside a Home Depot store in Falls Church, Virginia. In October 2004, under a plea-agreement, Malvo plead guilty in another case in Spotsylvania County for another murder to avoid a possible death penalty sentence, and agreed to additional sentencing of life imprisonment without parole. Malvo had yet to face trial in Prince William County, Virginia. However, in light of this Supreme Court decision, the prosecutors in Prince William County have decided not pursue the charges against Malvo, after all. Prosecutors in Maryland, Louisiana and Alabama are still interested in putting both Malvo and Muhammad on trial.

Related Topics:
Virginia - Lee Boyd Malvo - John Allen Muhammad - DC sniper - Washington DC - 2002 - FBI - Falls Church - Spotsylvania County - Prince William County, Virginia - Maryland - Louisiana - Alabama

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

At the outset of the Beltway sniper prosecutions, the primary reason for extraditing the two suspects from Maryland, where they were arrested, to Virginia, was in fact the differences in how the two states deal with the death penalty. While the death penalty is allowed in Maryland, it is only applied to persons who were adults at the time of their crimes, whereas Virginia had also allowed the death penalty for offenders who had been juveniles when their crimes were committed. At the time of the Roper v. Simmons ruling, Malvo was 20 years old, and was held at Virginia's maximum security Red Onion State Prison in Pound in Wise County, Virginia.

Related Topics:
Maryland - Pound - Wise County, Virginia

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~