Stanford v Kentucky and Roper v Simmons
Stanford vs Kentucky
Statement of the Issue
When Kevin Stanford raped and murdered Barbra Poore, he was only 17 years old. Miss Poore worked at a petrol station in the area and was assisting with raising a little child. Mr. Stanford was one of three male suspects believed to have committed the act (Justia, 1989). Evidence gathered by the police implicated Mr. Stanford and his friend Mr. David Buchanan in the rape of Miss Poore, with Troy Johnson serving as a third accomplice cum the vehicle’s driver. According to new evidence, Mr. Johnson drove Miss Poore to the murder scene in her automobile, where Mr. Stanford fatally shot her in the face.
Details of the Case Background
Mr. Standford’s case was scheduled to go to juvenile court during his arrest. After the proceedings, the court decided to try Mr. Stanford as an adult (Justia, 1989). The court’s decision was attributable to a provision in state law that applies to anyone over 16 who has been prosecuted with a Class A felony, a capital offense, or any atrocious act. Mr. Stanford was pronounced culpable after his trial and given a death sentence.
How the Court Ruled
After his sentence, the highest court in Kentucky upheld the death penalty. Mr. Stanford claimed in his petition that his age and the potential for rehabilitation gave him the right to be considered a minor and to have privileges in the juvenile system. The court found that age discrimination did not infringe the Eighth Amendment’s outlaw of brutal and unusual penalties. Mr. Stanford took the case proceedings to the Supreme Court (Justia, 1989). The Supreme Court resolved, by a slight five-four margin, that states have the prudence to determine whether or not to execute a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old and that the practice cannot be considered brutal or disproportionate punishment at this point.
Roper v Simmons
Statement of the Issue
At 17 years old, Simmons and his acquaintance Benjamin plotted the killing of Shirley Crook, aged 46, in 1993. They intended to conduct burglary and murder at Mr. Cook’s house. Both suspects entered Mrs. Cook’s house, blindfolded her, and tied her hands and feet. After the break-in, the two suspects went to a nearby state park, where they threw Mrs. Cook from a bridge and into the water below (Cornell Law School, n.d.). The evidence presented at trial was conclusive; proof of the crime’s premeditation and planning included a videotape of Mr. Simmons acting out the crime and evidence from Mr. Benjamin and an independent witness, John Tessmer. Mr. Simmons was found blameworthy of murder and received a death sentence from the jury.
Details of the Case Background
Mr. Simmons contested his conviction several times after it was upheld but to no avail. The Supreme Court abolished the death sentence for those with intellectual disabilities in 2002 (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Mr. Simmons appealed his conviction by submitting a fresh petition to the state. A nationwide consensus emerged against the killing of minor offenders, the Missouri Supreme Court found in this case. The Eighth Amendment forbidding unreasonable and cruel retribution no longer applies to such practices. Mr. Simmons’ death penalty was reversed, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
How the Court Ruled
This ruling prompted an appeal from Missouri, and the US Supreme Court consented to take up the proceedings. The Supreme Court found, by a margin of 5 to 2, that it violates the Constitution to execute a juvenile under eighteen (Cornell Law School, n.d.). In the second case involving Mr. Simmons, the court appeared to change its mind because of shifting public opinion.
Summary
I support the initial decision in Stanford’s case because being a minor should not be used as a cover for heinous crimes such as murder, and everyone found guilty should be treated as such. In Simmons’ case, I support the second decision because I do not consider one’s death as punishment because it reprimands the criminal’s loved ones. Unlike a life sentence, the death penalty does not expose culprits to suffering and denies a chance for correction.
References
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Roper v. Simmons (03-633) 543 U.S. 551 (2005). Web.
Justia. (1989). Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989). Web.