Judicial Activism - Roper v Simmons - Essay Example

ROPER V. SIMMONS Debbie Whitmore Academia-Research, Inc. June 23, 2005 Judicial activism and restraint are points of controversy for politicians, general public and the Supreme Court itself. Judicial activism refers to the court's willingness to become involved in major issues and the extent that it makes decisions based on constitutional grounds. Judicial restraint is when the Court takes the stand that law making is to be left to the legislators and it opposes the nullification of a law only when the Constitution is unquestionably violated. It has been said that 'throughout its history, the Court has claimed to exercise judicial review with restraint, but it has always actively pursued its chosen policies of the moment' (2005). In Roper v. Simmons, a seventeen year old by the name of Simmons confessed that he plotted the murder and burglary of an older woman. This case placed the question before the Courts as to whether or not a person younger than eighteen years old should be punished with the death penalty when convicted of crimes that would typically mandated capital punishment. The seventeen year old was originally sentenced to death for his crimes. This decision was later overturned by the Missouri Supreme Court and the defendant's sentence was converted to life imprisonment. The Missouri Supreme Court stated that although there were cases that illustrated that there was a precedent set that allowed for capital punishment for those persons under the age of eighteen, that a 'national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders'(2005). This case has since been heard by the United States Supreme Courts. Judicial activism and restraint are concepts that can be readily viewed in the Roper v. Simmons case when it was decided by the Supreme Court in March 2005. The majority opinion addressed both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when considering the affirmation of the Missouri Supreme Court decision. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment against those in the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment allows all citizens, even those that have committed heinous crimes, equal protection of the laws. Per the court's opinion, neither the Eighth nor the Fourteenth Amendment disallows the use of the death penalty for either persons that are under the age of eighteen or that are deemed mentally retarded. The Court's majority states that twenty-two of thirty-seven death penalty states permit the death penalty for the offenders that are sixteen years old. The same thirty-seven states permitted the death penalty for those offenders that were seventeen years old. The Court went further to state that such figures are not indicative of a nation that is moving towards a consensus against capital punishment for those offenders that are less than eighteen years of age. Two court cases were consistently referenced in the opinion: Stanford v. Kentucky 492 U.S. 361 (1989) and Atkins v. Virginia 536 U.S. 304(2002). Stanford and Atkins speak to both issues of capital punishment for juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded. These two cases decided that it was not inappropriate to utilize the death penalty for those younger than age eighteen or mentally retarded, respectively. Typically, judicial restraint would have allowed the Supreme Court to overturn the Missouri Courts ruling based on precedents and existing laws. However, the majority opinion took its review of the existing laws by interpreting the intention of the laws and how they related to the intention of the Constitutional Amendments. The majority opinion stated that although the death penalty for youths and the mentally retarded were not prohibited, they were rarely used as methods of punishment. In many cases, the Court notes that allowances were made for juveniles that had committed heinous crimes because it was and is recognized that these persons have impaired judgements and their behaviours can be influenced by their environments. The Courts opinion also acknowledged the fact that juveniles are immature and irresponsible in nature. Based on such findings and considerations, it would be unreasonable to treat juveniles as adults were and are treated when committing the same crimes. The Court also considered that based on public actions and opinion that its ruling was in line with the world community. This reasoning is an example of the Courts practicing judicial activism. The opinion of the Courts has cited several cased that illustrate a precedent has already been set for its ruling. The cases Thompson v. Oklahoma 487 U.S. at 856, Ford v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 399 and Atkins v. Virginia 536 U.X. 304 acts as a precedent or stare decis in the Roper v. Simmons case, in that they uphold the principle that the death penalty should only be used for a narrow category of crimes and offenders(2005). Other cases cited in the opinion, Lockett v. Ohio 438 U.S. 586, 604, Eddings v. Oklahoma 455 U.S. 104, 110-112(1982), Coker v. Georgia 433 U.S. 584 and Enmund v. Florida 458 U.S> 782(1982) are examples of common or case law that state that mitigating factors have to be present and that only certain classes of crimes and offenders can be considered for capital punishment. Although the majority did utilize case law in order to make its decisions, it is use of case law is inconsistent with the principles of both stare decis and common law. Stare decis, which is let the decision stand, and common law, which is judge-made law. Both principles require the use of cases that have set precedents within the realms of lawmaking. The majority opinion clearly uses cases that have set precedents for this case, however in analyzing the precedent setting cases the meanings or interpretation of the Courts that decided the cases was re-interpreted and not taken at face value. In doing this, the Supreme Court of both the United States and Missouri have recognized that the law of a nation is constantly growing, changing and maturing with its people. The dissenting opinion by Judge Scalia expresses discontent with the fact that the Courts have ruled against existing laws by attempting to interpret its original intent. Scalia also states that the majority opinion falls short by attempting to prove its case by stating that a very small percentage of murder cases committed by juveniles were punished with the death penalty. Scalia states that the percentage is small because of the small number of capital crimes actually committed by those under the age of eighteen when compared to the adult population. The dissenting judge expands on this opinion further by stating that although juveniles are immature and are prone to commit irresponsible acts; murder is usually not one of them. Scalia believes that the majority opinion of the Court was an example of the Courts allowing public opinion of the times to affect the interpretation of the Constitution. REFERENCE LIST Judicial Review, 2005, The Reader's Companion, viewed June 20 2005, www.college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_04880. Supreme Court of the United States, No. 03-633. Roper v. Simmons, On Writ of Certiorari of the Supreme Court of Missouri, March 1, 2005. Read More