Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Juvenile Death Penalty Evolving Standards of Decency

• NCJ Number: 205278
• Author(s): Adam Ortiz
• Date Published: January 2004
• Length: 4 pages
• Corporate Author: American Bar Assoc
• Sale Source: American Bar Assoc
• Publication Format: Document (Online)
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Downloaded May 6, 2004.

Annotation

This paper examines the standards used by the U.S. Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia (2002) in prohibiting the execution of the mentally retarded and applies these standards to the execution of juveniles.

Abstract

The "Atkins" opinion stems from eighth amendment jurisprudence that has interpreted the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited under this amendment. Referring to the eighth amendment, Chief Justice Warren stated that, "the Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" (Trop v. Dulles, 1958). The objective factors that have been used by the Court to measure evolving standards of decency are as follows (in order of importance): State legislation, sentencing decisions of juries, and the views of entities with relevant expertise. Court opinions have also established that the Court may bring its own judgment about the current status of standards of decency. This paper concludes that the comparison of the evidence of an "evolving standard of decency" between the execution of mentally retarded offenders and juvenile offenders is virtually indistinguishable. Regarding State legislation, at the time of this report 29 States prohibit the death penalty for juvenile offenders, and none of the juvenile-death-penalty jurisdictions have lowered the minimum age of eligibility for capital punishment to 16. Of the 21 States that retain the death penalty for juveniles, only 1 has used it with any frequency. Juries are increasingly reluctant to impose death on a juvenile, and the reversal rate for death sentences imposed on juveniles is 85 percent. Further, explicit opposition to the execution of juveniles has been longstanding, diverse, and continues to increase among medical and health groups, child welfare organizations, and religious and ethical organizations. Thus, the parallels between the Court's considerations in "Atkins" that justify a categorical exemption for the mentally retarded and those of juveniles are clear; for juveniles as for the mentally retarded, there is the higher possibility of false confessions, the lesser ability to give meaningful assistance to their counsel, and a special risk of wrongful execution. 2 figures and 31 notes