Home > Sample essays > Evol. of 8th Amendment: Juveniles Can’t Receive Death Penalty – Cases Showing Change

Essay: Evol. of 8th Amendment: Juveniles Can’t Receive Death Penalty – Cases Showing Change

Essay details and download:

  • Subject area(s): Sample essays
  • Reading time: 4 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 1 April 2019*
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 1,205 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 5 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 1,205 words. Download the full version above.



Grady Gillam Mrs. Marks Government 1 March 2018

The Evolution of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause

Cruel and unusual punishments are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment set in place to

protect the American people from a tyrannical and unjust government. While the Eighth Amendment is one of the shortest amendments, it has been interpreted by many justices in a variety of different ways, constantly redefining its power. Throughout the years, the powers of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause have evolved. Supreme court cases set precedents that protect individuals who are younger than sixteen from capital punishment, prove that the standards for cruel and unusual punishment do not scale with the crime, and protect all minors from the death penalty. Over the course of the last thirty years, numerous major court cases have helped shape and evolve the Eighth Amendment. Some impactful cases include Thompson v. Oklahoma, Harmelin v. Michigan, and Roper v. Simmons, all of which helped to define the powers of the Eighth Amendment.

In Thompson v. Oklahoma, at the age of fifteen, William Wayne Thompson participated in the murder of Thompson’s former brother-in-law, Charles Keene. Previous to the murder, Keene had physically abused Thompson’s sister. He committed the murder with three others, all of whom were convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. However, at the age of fifteen, Thompson was considered a juvenile offender and therefore was not able to be sentenced to the death penalty. Regardless, the state prosecutors argued that at his age, he should have clearly known the wrongfulness of his actions and should be convicted as if he were adult.

 

The court tried Thompson as an adult and, like the three others involved in the murder, was sentenced to the death penalty (“Thompson v. Oklahoma | Oyez”). After Thompson appealed the decision and failed, the case landed in the supreme court, in the case of Thompson v. Oklahoma. This case raised the question of the constitutionality of the execution of a person under the age of sixteen. The court ultimately decided that it was unconstitutional to execute a fifteen-year-old with a vote of 5 to 3. Following this judgement, a minor under the age of sixteen has never been executed, demonstrating the strong precedent set by this case. Justice John Paul Stevens stated in the majority opinion that “civil standards of decency” would not allow for the execution of someone so young without it being considered a cruel or unusual form of punishment. This case was important in strengthening the power of the Eighth Amendment further protecting the rights of U.S citizens from unfair punishment (“Pearson Prentice Hall: Supreme Court Cases”).

The Eighth Amendment was further evolved with respect to the scaling of crime with the punishment. After Ronald Harmelin was found guilty of possession of 650 grams of cocaine, he was sentenced to life in prison without a chance of parole. Harmelin, however, appealed the decision of the court arguing that the punishment for his crime was disproportionate to the crime which he committed concluding that the punishment was cruel with respect to the severity of the crime. After moving through the Michigan Court of Appeals, the case was brought before the Supreme Court in the case of Harmelin v. Michigan. The Supreme Court’s decision would determine whether the standard for cruel and unusual punishment scaled based on the severity of the crime committed. The Supreme Court, with a vote of 5 to 4, held the decision of the lower courts, stating that the Eighth Amendment did not guarantee that the standards for cruel and unusual punishment could be altered based on the severity of the crime (“Harmelin v. Michigan | Oyez”). Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion, “There are no adequate textual or historical

standards to enable judges to determine whether a particular penalty is disproportional” (Scalia). Scalia points out that there is no way to correctly determine whether a punishment is disproportionately severe compared to the crime. This precedent had a major impact on the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause because even punishments that are considered cruel are not necessarily unusual and therefore are considered constitutional (Reuters, HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN). The decision of this case weakened the power of the Eighth Amendment and the protection of the American people by allowing severe punishments regardless of the nature of the crime.

The minimum age at which capital punishment could be given was further raised in the Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons. At the age of seventeen, Cristopher Simmons committed first degree murder. At the age of eighteen, he was sentenced to the death penalty. Simmons’s initial appeals were rejected. However, Simmons appealed again for state post- conviction relief. He argued that the precedent set by Atkins v. Virginia, outlawing the execution of those who are mentally handicapped should be applied to the execution of someone who is a minor. The Missouri Supreme Court sent the case to the Federal Supreme Court to reconsider the original decision. The Supreme Court’s decision proved that the execution of minors violated the Eighth Amendment considering the punishment to be cruel and unusual (Roper v. Simmons | Oyez). In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote, “When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity” (Kennedy). Justice Kennedy believed that it would be morally wrong to take the life of a minor because he or she may still have the ability to gain a proper understanding of their wrong-doing (ROPER V. SIMMONS). The precedent set by this case further strengthened the

   

 power of the Eighth Amendment protecting people under the age of eighteen from capital punishment. No juvenile has been sentenced to the death penalty since the judgement in Roper v. Simmons.

The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause has evolved through the rulings and precedents set by Supreme Court cases. These cases have determined that capital punishment is unlawful for minors under the age of sixteen, the standards for cruel and unusual punishment do not scale with the severity of the crime, and no minor can be sentenced to the death penalty. Thompson v. Oklahoma determined that the execution of a person under the age of sixteen is unlawful. Harmelin v. Michigan concluded that the protection of cruel and unusual punishments does not scale with the severity of the crime. The Supreme Court Case Roper v. Simmons further expanded the rights of minors by raising the minimum age of capital punishment to eighteen. In sum, the protections provided to American citizens under the Eighth Amendment were strengthened and clarified by the precedents set forth in these cases.

 

Works Cited

“Thompson v. Oklahoma.” Oyez, 28 Feb. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-6169. “Supreme Court Cases.” Pearson Prentice Hall: Supreme Court Cases, Prentice Hall,

www.phschool.com/atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/thompson.html. "Harmelin v. Michigan." Oyez, 28 Feb. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/1990/89-7272.

Reuters, Thomson. “FindLaw's United States Supreme Court Case and Opinions.” Findlaw,

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/501/957.html.

“ROPER V. SIMMONS.” ROPER V. SIMMONS, Cornell University, 13 Oct. 2004,

www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Evol. of 8th Amendment: Juveniles Can’t Receive Death Penalty – Cases Showing Change. Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/sample-essays/2018-3-1-1519911143/> [Accessed 29-03-24].

These Sample essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.