Summary of Argument

This Court has long recognized that imposition of the death penalty upon certain classes of individuals constitutes excessive punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Juveniles are exempt from that punishment based upon this Court’s recognition of their diminished culpability due to characteristics that typify youth—immaturity, impetuosity, susceptibility to negative peer influences and a lack of fully formed character. These characteristics,more than the specific age of the offender, determine the class of individuals for whom the death penalty is unconstitutional.

Although this Court has acknowledged that it is the characteristics of youth that require constitutional protection, and not a specific chronological age, it has also recognized that an age-based line must be drawn. In determining where to draw this line, the Court has looked to the current national consensus on the demarcation of adulthood, as reflected in state sentencing practices and legislation, as well as the scientific community’s own growing understanding of human development. Accordingly, in the context of the death penalty, this Court has repeatedly revised or altered its articulation of the line between juveniles and adults to account for society’s evolving views.

In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 562 (2005), this Court ruled that subjecting juvenile offenders who committed capital crimes to the death penalty prior to 18 constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Citing developments in the law and social science that reflected a new national consensus regarding juvenile development, the Court overruled its earlier decision in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), which upheld the death penalty for juveniles convicted of homicide when they were 16 or 17 years old.

In the twelve years since Roper was decided, the objective indicia of national consensus—including state death penalty and sentencing practices, legislative developments, and empirical research— have once again evolved, requiring this Court to revisit prior case law and compelling the conclusion that the line between childhood and adulthood must now be moved to 21.

From laws regulating the consumption, purchase or possession of tobacco and marijuana to laws extending the period of time for provision of child support and foster care, recent legislative changes evince a national consensus that individuals under the age of 21 should be considered less culpable for their criminal acts than fully-developed adults. Moreover, these legislative trends have been informed by neuroscientific research, which demonstrates that the portions of the brain associated with the developmental characteristics identified in Roper, including the regulation of judgment and self-control, are still maturing in individuals at least through 21.

Accordingly, the age range this Court associates with the characteristics of youth is ripe for revisit. This Court should grant certiorari in order to reexamine this issue and extend the line of adulthood to 21 in accordance with the nation’s clear consensus.

Summary of Argument

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of excessive punishment, and the Supreme Court has recognized that the death penalty is unconstitutional for certain classes of individuals, including juveniles. This exemption is based on the diminished culpability of youth due to their immature cognitive abilities, susceptibility to peer pressure, and underdeveloped character.

The Evolution of the Age of Adulthood in Death Penalty Jurisprudence

While the Court has acknowledged that it is the characteristics of youth that necessitate constitutional protection, it has also recognized the need for an age-based line. In determining this line, the Court has considered the national consensus on the age of adulthood, as reflected in state laws and scientific research.

In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Court held that the death penalty for juvenile offenders under the age of 18 was unconstitutional. This decision was based on evolving societal views and scientific evidence regarding juvenile development.

Recent Developments Warranting a Reassessment

Since Roper, there have been significant changes in the national consensus and scientific understanding of human development. Legislative trends, such as laws restricting tobacco and marijuana use for individuals under 21, indicate a recognition that this age group is less culpable than adults.

Moreover, neuroscientific research has shown that the brain regions associated with judgment and self-control continue to mature until at least age 21. These findings suggest that the characteristics of youth that justify the exemption from the death penalty extend beyond the age of 18.

Conclusion

In light of the evolving national consensus and scientific evidence, the Supreme Court should revisit its prior case law and extend the age of adulthood for purposes of the death penalty to 21. This would align with the current understanding of juvenile development and ensure that the Eighth Amendment's protection against excessive punishment is applied fairly and consistently.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty for juveniles is unconstitutional because they are less responsible for their actions due to their youth. However, the age at which someone is considered an adult for this purpose has changed over time.

In 2005, the Court ruled that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute offenders who were under 18 when they committed their crimes. This decision was based on research showing that young people are:

• Less mature

• More impulsive

• More likely to be influenced by others

• Less able to control their emotions

Since 2005, more research has shown that the brain continues to develop until at least age 21. This means that young people up to that age may still have the same characteristics that make them less responsible for their actions.

Many states have changed their laws to reflect this new understanding. They have raised the age at which someone can be sentenced to death or have abolished the death penalty for young offenders altogether.

The Supreme Court should revisit its previous ruling and extend the age of adulthood for the death penalty to 21. This would be in line with the growing national consensus and the latest scientific evidence.

Summary of Argument

What the Court Has Said

The highest court in the US has said that it's too harsh to give the death penalty to young people. They believe that young people are not as responsible for their actions as adults because they:

• Are still growing and changing

• Can be easily influenced by others

• Don't always think through the consequences of their actions

The Age Limit

In the past, the court has set different age limits for when the death penalty can be used. In 2005, they said it couldn't be used for people under 18.

Why the Age Limit Should Be Raised

Now, some people believe the age limit should be raised to 21. They have a few reasons for this:

• Laws in many states treat people under 21 differently, like not allowing them to buy alcohol or smoke.

• Studies have shown that the brains of people under 21 are still developing, especially in areas that control decision-making and self-control.

Conclusion

The court is being asked to look at this issue again and consider raising the age limit for the death penalty to 21. They will consider what most people in the country think and what science has to say about brain development.

Summary of Argument

Kids and Teens Are Different from Adults

Kids and teens aren't as grown-up as adults. They don't think as clearly, they act without thinking, and they're more likely to do what their friends tell them to do. That's why they shouldn't get the worst punishment, which is called the death penalty.

The Age Line Keeps Changing

In the past, the age when kids were considered adults was different. Sometimes it was 16 or 17, but then it changed to 18. That's because people started to understand that kids are still developing and maturing.

Now It's Time to Change It Again

Now, even more people believe that kids under 21 should be treated differently. They're not as responsible for their actions as adults, and their brains are still growing. So, it's time to change the age line again and say that kids under 21 shouldn't get the death penalty.