Summary of Argument

Under this Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, a punishment is “cruel and unusual” if a consensus among the states forbids it. Fifteen years ago, this Court did not find such a consensus with regard to the execution of juvenile offenders; the day was yet to come “when there is such general legislative rejection” of these executions. Stanford, 492 U.S. at 381-82 (O’Connor, J., concurring).

Today, legislative rejection of juvenile executions is widespread, and legislatures that have changed their laws in recent years have moved in one direction. In the 15 years since Stanford, seven states plus the federal government have joined those states that previously prohibited juvenile executions, while no state has lowered its minimum age for capital punishment below 18. Today, 31 jurisdictions plus the federal government prohibit the execution of offenders who were less than 18 at the time they committed their crimes, with 18 states explicitly setting 18 as the minimum age of eligibility.

This legislative consensus likely will endure because it emerged after steady deliberation, over a long period of time – longer than that previously found by this Court to sufficiently reflect a national judgment. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). By 1989, the last time this Court considered the issue, 11 states already expressly prohibited juvenile executions.

A simultaneous trend in recent years toward tougher treatment of juvenile offenders confirms that the choice to bar these executions is deliberate and considered. As the states have moved toward prohibiting juvenile executions, they have also enacted stricter juvenile justice laws that expose juveniles to adult criminal liability. All of the 18 capital punishment states that expressly shield juvenile offenders from the death penalty require or allow juveniles charged with murder to be prosecuted as adults. That many states treat juveniles offenders like adults, but make an exception when it comes to capital punishment, reflects a considered judgment that death is inappropriate for juvenile offenders. This mitigates against any hazard of prematurely declaring juvenile executions “cruel and unusual.”

Summary of Argument

The Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence holds that a punishment is "cruel and unusual" if a consensus among the states forbids it. While fifteen years ago, the Court did not find such a consensus regarding the execution of juvenile offenders, today, a strong legislative consensus against juvenile executions exists. In the fifteen years since Stanford v. Kentucky, seven states and the federal government have joined the ranks of those prohibiting juvenile executions, while none have lowered their minimum age for capital punishment below 18.

Currently, 31 jurisdictions, including the federal government, prohibit the execution of offenders who were under 18 at the time of their crimes, with 18 states explicitly setting 18 as the minimum age for eligibility. This legislative consensus is likely to persist, as it has emerged from a long period of deliberate and steady consideration, longer than that previously identified by the Court as sufficiently reflecting a national judgment.

Furthermore, the simultaneous trend toward stricter juvenile justice laws, including increased adult criminal liability for juveniles, reinforces the deliberateness of the choice to bar juvenile executions. Notably, all 18 capital punishment states that expressly protect juvenile offenders from the death penalty require or permit juveniles charged with murder to be tried as adults. The contrast between states' treatment of juvenile offenders in other contexts and their exemption from capital punishment suggests a conscious decision that death is inappropriate for juvenile offenders. This mitigates the risk of prematurely declaring juvenile executions "cruel and unusual."

Summary of Argument

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. The Supreme Court has established that a punishment is considered cruel and unusual when there is a consensus amongst the states that it should be prohibited. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that a national consensus against the execution of juvenile offenders did not yet exist. However, in the years since that ruling, a significant shift in state laws has occurred. Currently, 31 jurisdictions, including the federal government, have outlawed the execution of offenders who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crime. This represents a substantial consensus amongst the states and strongly suggests that executing juveniles is considered cruel and unusual.

The shift in state laws towards prohibiting juvenile executions is a result of careful deliberation and a long-term trend. In 1989, when the Supreme Court last addressed this issue, 11 states already prohibited the execution of juvenile offenders. Over the past two decades, this number has more than doubled. The states have not acted rashly; the movement to ban juvenile executions has been gradual and carefully considered, spanning decades.

Furthermore, while states have been moving towards prohibiting the execution of juveniles, they have also simultaneously enacted stricter juvenile justice laws. Many states have implemented policies that allow juveniles charged with serious crimes, including murder, to be tried as adults. This trend suggests that states recognize the need to hold juveniles accountable for their actions while also acknowledging that they are distinct from adults in terms of culpability and maturity. The fact that states have simultaneously strengthened juvenile justice laws and banned juvenile executions underscores the considered judgment that capital punishment is inappropriate for juvenile offenders.

Summary of Argument

The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that punishments can't be "cruel and unusual." This means that a punishment is illegal if most states have decided it's wrong.

Fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court didn't think there was enough agreement among states to ban the death penalty for people who were under 18 when they committed a crime. However, since then, many states have changed their laws to make it illegal to execute people who were younger than 18 when they committed their crime.

Today, 31 states and the federal government have banned this practice. This shows that there is a strong consensus against executing people who were under 18 when they committed a crime.

The decision to ban juvenile executions is a deliberate one. States have chosen to treat these offenders differently from adults when it comes to the death penalty, even though they have made other laws that treat young offenders as adults in other ways. This shows that states have carefully considered the issue and believe that the death penalty is inappropriate for young people.

Summary of Argument

The Supreme Court has decided that punishments are “cruel and unusual” if most states agree that they are wrong. Fifteen years ago, the Court said there wasn’t enough agreement to stop executing people who were under 18 when they committed crimes.

But now, many more states have changed their laws to stop this kind of execution. In fact, 31 states, plus the federal government, have decided that people under 18 shouldn’t be executed.

This is because states have thought carefully about this for a long time, just like they did before the Court ruled that it’s wrong to execute people with mental disabilities. In fact, many states have gotten tougher on young criminals, but they still don’t think it’s right to execute them.

So, it seems like there’s a strong agreement that executing young people is wrong, and that’s why the Supreme Court should rule that it’s “cruel and unusual.”