Summary of Argument

The Eighth Amendment draws its meaning from the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958).

There is a national consensus that capital punishment should be reserved for the most culpable offenders. Use of capital punishment has been reduced to a handful of states, and even within those states, a small percentage of counties. This firm consensus supports the view that executing those 21 years of age at the time of the offense is excessive, unnecessary, contradicting the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation, and, as such, cruel and unusual punishment.

This consensus is informed by the scientific evidence that the exigencies of youth continue beyond 18 years of age, that brain development is not finalized in the late teenage years, but continues into the mid-twenties. Scientific evidence confirms the concrete behavioral effects this continuing brain development has upon individuals in the late adolescent/young adult range. Further, this evidence demonstrates that childhood and adolescent exposure to lead, trauma, physical or emotional or sexual abuse, neglect, and alcohol or other substance abuse delays brain development.

Now, thirteen years after this Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), this Court can make clear that an individual in his young twenties, may be cognitively and emotionally indistinguishable from a “typical” juvenile under the age of eighteen. In 32 jurisdictions, there is little or no practical possibility of executing a person who was 21 at the time of the offense.

While a handful of states continue to impose capital punishment on 21-year-olds, most of these states, like Florida, imposed those sentences during a period in the 1990’s when youth was viewed as an aggravating rather than mitigating circumstance.

Executing individuals barely old enough to vote or drink, unable to rent a car, unable to serve in Congress, and still in the throes of cognitive development —based upon now-disregarded views of culpability—undermines this Court’s commitment to dignity, and the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.

Summary of Argument

The Eighth Amendment's interpretation is rooted in the evolving standards of decency that characterize societal progress, as established by the Supreme Court in Trop v. Dulles. This principle, applied to capital punishment, reveals a national consensus against its application for individuals with lesser culpability, resulting in its limited use by a select few states and even fewer counties within those states. The emerging consensus against the execution of individuals aged 21 at the time of the offense is based on scientific evidence highlighting the ongoing brain development beyond the age of 18, and the continued cognitive and emotional immaturity of young adults.

The scientific evidence regarding brain development confirms that individuals in late adolescence and young adulthood are still undergoing significant neurological changes, making them less capable of fully appreciating the consequences of their actions and exhibiting the same level of culpability as adults. Further, research demonstrates that exposure to various forms of trauma and adverse childhood experiences during early development can further delay brain maturation, exacerbating these vulnerabilities.

Thirteen years after Roper v. Simmons, the court has the opportunity to reaffirm the evolving standards of decency by recognizing the cognitive and emotional similarities between individuals in their early twenties and typical juveniles under 18. Notably, a significant number of jurisdictions have effectively eliminated the possibility of executing individuals who were 21 at the time of the offense.

Despite this trend, some states still permit capital punishment for individuals in this age group. However, many of these states, such as Florida, implemented these policies during a period when youth was considered an aggravating factor, rather than a mitigating one.

Executing individuals in the late stages of cognitive development, who are still subject to limitations associated with their age, undermines the principle of dignity and the potential for rehabilitation and redemption. These individuals, barely old enough to participate in basic civic duties, such as voting or drinking, should not be subjected to the ultimate punishment, especially when societal views on culpability have shifted significantly.

Summary of Argument

The Eighth Amendment's interpretation is guided by the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958). The prevailing consensus in the United States is that capital punishment should only be applied to the most egregious offenders. The use of the death penalty has significantly declined, being limited to a handful of states and a small number of counties within those states. This strong consensus supports the argument that executing individuals who were 21 years old at the time of their offense constitutes excessive and unnecessary punishment, contradicting principles of deterrence and rehabilitation. As a result, such punishment can be considered cruel and unusual.

This consensus is grounded in scientific evidence that demonstrates the continued development of the brain beyond the age of 18, extending into the mid-twenties. This ongoing brain development has tangible behavioral consequences for individuals in their late adolescence and early adulthood. Furthermore, scientific evidence reveals that exposure to lead, trauma, physical or emotional abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, and alcohol or substance abuse during childhood and adolescence can hinder brain development.

Thirteen years after the Supreme Court's decision in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Court has the opportunity to clarify that individuals in their early twenties may be cognitively and emotionally indistinguishable from typical juveniles under the age of eighteen. Thirty-two jurisdictions have effectively eliminated the possibility of executing individuals who were 21 at the time of their offense.

While a limited number of states continue to impose capital punishment on 21-year-olds, most of these states, like Florida, enacted such laws during the 1990s when youth was viewed as an aggravating rather than a mitigating circumstance.

Executing individuals who are barely old enough to vote or consume alcohol, who cannot rent a car or serve in Congress, and who are still undergoing cognitive development, based on outdated views of culpability, undermines the Court's commitment to human dignity, the possibility of rehabilitation, and the potential for redemption.

Summary of Argument

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that punishment should be fair and not cruel. The Supreme Court has said that this means punishment should reflect the values of society.

Many people believe that the death penalty should only be used for the worst crimes. It’s being used less and less, and even in states where it’s still allowed, it’s only used in a few cases.

Scientific evidence shows that the brain continues to develop until the mid-twenties. This means that people in their early twenties are still developing their decision-making abilities. This development can be slowed down by things like childhood trauma or substance abuse.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute people who were under 18 when they committed a crime. The Court should now consider that young adults in their early twenties may have similar mental and emotional capabilities as teenagers. Most states have already made it so that people who were 21 at the time of a crime cannot be executed.

Even though a few states still allow the death penalty for people who were 21 when they committed a crime, they often passed those laws when people thought that being young made a crime worse. This is no longer the accepted view.

The Court should recognize that executing young adults who are still developing their brains is unfair and goes against the principles of dignity and rehabilitation.

Summary of Argument

The Eighth Amendment says that punishments should be fair and just. This means they should change over time as we learn new things.

Many people think that the death penalty should only be used for the worst crimes. Only a few states still use it, and even in those states, only a small number of people are sentenced to death. This shows that most people believe it's wrong to give the death penalty to someone who was 21 years old when they committed a crime.

Scientists have learned that our brains keep developing until we're about 25 years old. This means that someone who is 21 might not be able to understand the consequences of their actions as well as a grown-up. They also learned that things like being abused, neglected, or exposed to alcohol or drugs can slow down brain development.

So, since we know more about how brains work, we need to think about how that affects what punishments are fair. We wouldn't punish a 10-year-old for a crime the same way we would punish a 25-year-old. It's not fair to give the death penalty to someone who is still developing their brain.

Most states have already stopped giving the death penalty to people who were 21 when they committed a crime. It's time for the rest of the states to do the same. It's wrong to punish someone who is still growing up like a grown-up.