Summary of Argument

The issue before the Court is whether the execution of a person who committed premeditated murder while under the age of eighteen constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Court is using the national standards of decency doctrine in a way that ignores what punishment society really deems acceptable and appropriate because it does not apply the criteria that is reflected through state legislation and defined by the Court as what factors dictate whether punishment is cruel and unusual. The time has come for the Court to adopt as federal law the clear objective criteria it has defined over the past century evolving out of state legislation to determine what punishment constitutes cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. The Court should require all states to apply the criteria on a case-by-case basis focusing on the moral culpability of the defendant.

The foundation of our judicial system is based on moral culpability. In intentional torts and criminal law the judicial system requires a requisite mental state in order to convict one of a crime. In criminal law, specifically murder cases, punishment is imposed according to one's degree of mens rea. In fact, one of the rationales for imposing the death penalty, deterrence, is directly linked to one's moral culpability because the threat of death prevents one from forming the intent to kill. The ultimate penalty is imposed on those who intend to kill, understand right from wrong and the consequences of their actions at the time of the act and nevertheless kill another human being.

Juveniles are capable of understanding right from wrong and the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, they are capable of forming the requisite intent to kill to merit the death penalty. They are also capable of being deterred from forming the requisite intent as will be illustrated in the analysis of the instant case.

The Court and a majority of state legislatures have held that individual consideration is a constitutional requirement before sentencing one to death. The Court needs to abide by this requirement and not group juveniles together as a class based on age. Rather, it should recognize that juvenile defendants, even those in the same age group, are shaped by individual life experiences and therefore possess different levels of maturity and make different choices. Consequently, their decisions affect their moral responsibility for a crime. This will be illustrated by looking at the similarities of Thompson, Wilkins, and Stanford and contrasting their moral culpability to that of Lee Malvo in the sniper case. What is reflected is that a fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen-year-old can be morally culpable to merit the death penalty. To ascertain the issue, a case-by-case analysis is required.

The Court should not focus solely on the states that expressly prohibit the execution of anyone under the age of 18 to decide if there is a national consensus. Rather, the Court should both consider and recognize that there is a national consensus among state legislatures to impose the death penalty on a defendant who did not intend to kill, nor killed, but was a major participant in a felony murder who knew that death was likely to occur. Clearly, this indicates that society deems it acceptable to impose the death penalty on a seven-teen-year-old that intended to kill and did in fact kill.

Executing the Respondent is not cruel and unusual punishment because he specifically knew it was wrong to kill, understood the consequences of his actions, and nevertheless committed a horrific premeditated murder of an innocent woman. His justification for the murder was that he knew his age would prevent him from receiving the ultimate punishment. Juveniles like Simmons, need to be deterred from committing such an egregious act for the safety of society by being properly punished. The Respondent's execution furthers the goals of the death penalty because he deserves his life be taken as a result of him intentionally taking an innocent woman's life. Furthermore, it sends a message to other juveniles that when one understands the repercussions, knows right from wrong and still commits premeditated murder, he or she will receive the ultimate penalty.

Summary of Argument

The Court's use of the national standards of decency doctrine in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence fails to accurately reflect societal views on acceptable punishment for juveniles who commit premeditated murder. The Court should adopt objective criteria based on state legislation and individual moral culpability to determine if punishment is cruel and unusual.

The foundation of the judicial system rests on moral culpability, requiring a requisite mental state for conviction. In murder cases, punishment is tailored to the degree of mens rea. Deterrence, a rationale for the death penalty, relies on moral culpability, as the threat of death discourages the intent to kill. The death penalty is reserved for those who intentionally kill, understanding right from wrong and the consequences of their actions.

Juveniles possess the capacity to understand right from wrong, form the intent to kill, and be deterred from criminal acts. However, individual life experiences shape juvenile maturity and moral responsibility, warranting a case-by-case analysis rather than classifying all juveniles as a monolithic group. While some juveniles may lack moral culpability, others demonstrate the capacity for premeditated murder, as illustrated by cases such as Thompson, Wilkins, and Stanford.

The Court should consider the national consensus among state legislatures that supports imposing the death penalty on juveniles who participated in felony murders, even if they did not personally kill. This consensus demonstrates society's acceptance of capital punishment for juveniles who intentionally kill.

Executing the Respondent in this case is not cruel and unusual punishment. He knowingly committed a premeditated murder, understanding the wrongfulness of his actions and the consequences. His execution serves as a deterrent to others and aligns with the goals of the death penalty, ensuring that those who intentionally take innocent lives face the ultimate consequence.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court is tasked with determining whether executing someone who committed premeditated murder before the age of 18 constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment.

The Court utilizes the national standards of decency doctrine to determine what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, but this ignores the true societal consensus. The Court should instead adopt a consistent set of criteria derived from state legislation and its own precedent to define what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This would involve a case-by-case analysis that focuses on the moral culpability of the defendant.

The foundation of the judicial system rests on moral culpability. Criminal law requires a specific mental state (mens rea) to convict someone of a crime. In murder cases, punishment is determined by the level of mens rea. Deterrence, one of the rationales for the death penalty, is directly linked to moral culpability because the threat of death prevents someone from forming the intent to kill. The death penalty is reserved for those who intentionally kill, understand right from wrong and the consequences of their actions, and still choose to kill.

Juveniles are capable of understanding right from wrong and the consequences of their actions. They are also capable of forming the intent to kill. They can be deterred from committing such acts, as will be shown in the analysis of the case.

The Court and a majority of states require individualized consideration in death penalty cases. This means that juveniles should not be grouped as a class solely based on age. Instead, the Court should recognize that each juvenile's unique life experiences shape their maturity and choices, impacting their moral responsibility for crimes. The cases of Thompson, Wilkins, Stanford, and Lee Malvo highlight the fact that even fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen-year-olds can be morally culpable enough to merit the death penalty. A case-by-case analysis is necessary to determine this.

The Court should not solely focus on states that prohibit executions of minors when determining national consensus. It should consider the broad consensus among states that the death penalty is appropriate for individuals who did not intend to kill but were major participants in felony murders where death was likely. This indicates that society accepts the death penalty for seventeen-year-olds who intended to kill and did so.

The execution of the respondent is not cruel and unusual punishment because he knew killing was wrong, understood the consequences of his actions, and still committed a premeditated murder. The respondent's execution serves as a deterrent for other juveniles, furthering the goals of the death penalty. His intentional killing of an innocent woman merits the ultimate punishment. The execution sends a message that premeditated murder by juveniles who understand right from wrong and the consequences of their actions will result in the death penalty.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court is deciding whether it is legal to execute someone who committed murder before turning eighteen. This case asks if the death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment" for a minor.

The Court should decide based on the specific facts of each case, not just age. The Court's current approach ignores how states actually decide on punishment. The Court needs to recognize that a juvenile, even one who's just turned eighteen, can be considered morally responsible for their actions.

The death penalty is justified when someone understands right from wrong and chooses to commit a crime anyway. This idea of "moral culpability" is at the heart of our justice system. Even though juveniles are still developing, they can understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of their actions.

It's not fair to lump all teenagers together as if they're all the same. Some teenagers are more mature than others. They have different life experiences and make different choices. Therefore, their level of moral responsibility also varies.

The Court should consider what states are doing, even if they don't all ban the death penalty for minors. Most states agree that even a teenager can be punished severely, even with the death penalty, if they were part of a crime where someone died, even if they didn't actually kill the victim.

The teenager in this case, who killed an innocent woman, knew what he was doing was wrong. He understood the consequences of his actions. He even said he thought he wouldn't be punished because of his age. He needs to be punished to deter others from committing such a horrible crime. The death penalty is appropriate in this case because it's consistent with the purpose of the death penalty: to punish those who deserve it.

Summary of Argument

The Court is deciding whether it is okay to give the death penalty to someone who was under 18 when they killed someone. The Court is saying that it is cruel and unusual punishment to give the death penalty to someone who was under 18, but the author disagrees.

The author thinks the Court needs to look at each case separately to decide whether or not to give the death penalty. They say that even though someone is under 18, they still understand right from wrong and can be punished if they do something wrong.

The author says that even though some states don't allow the death penalty for people under 18, many states do. This shows that people think it's okay to give the death penalty to someone who was under 18 if they did something really bad.

The author thinks that the death penalty is fair in this case because the person knew it was wrong to kill, they knew they would get in trouble, but they did it anyway. The author says that if the person is given the death penalty, it will stop other young people from doing the same thing.