Death by Numbers: Why Evolving Standards Compel Extending Roper's Categorical Ban Against Executing Juveniles from Eighteen to Twenty-One
Nearly fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court held in Roper v. Simmons that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of people who were under eighteen at the time of their offenses. The Court justified the line it drew based on legislative enactments, jury verdicts, and neuroscience. In the interv...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Texas law review Vol. 98; no. 5; pp. 921 - 951 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Austin
University of Texas, Austin, School of Law Publications, Inc
01-04-2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Nearly fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court held in Roper v. Simmons that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of people who were under eighteen at the time of their offenses. The Court justified the line it drew based on legislative enactments, jury verdicts, and neuroscience. In the intervening years, however, much has changed in juvenile sentencing jurisprudence, the legal treatment of young people, and neuroscience. These changes beg the question: Why eighteen? Is the bright-line rule that the Court announced in Roper still constitutionally valid or do the changes since 2005 now point to a new cutoff at twenty-one? To answer those questions, this Essay considers /w.sV-Ropcr developments in the relevant domains to make the case that the eighteen-year-old constitutional line should be extended to age twenty-one. It does so by applying the Supreme Court's evolving-standards-of-decency methodology. Specifically, this Essay examines all death sentences and executions imposed in the United States postRoper and looks at the current state of neuroscientific research that the Court found compelling when it decided Roper. Two predominant trends emerge. First, there is a national consensus against executing people under twenty-one. This consensus comports with what new developments in neuroscience have made clear: people under twenty-one have brains that look and behave like the brains of younger teenagers, not like adult brains. Second, young people of color are disproportionately sentenced to die-even more so than adult capital defendants. The role of race is amplified when the victim is white. These trends confirm that the logic that compelled the Court to ban executions of people under eighteen extends to people under twentyone. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0040-4411 1942-857X |