Kids on death row.

• Author: Mitchell, Teresa
• Position: TODAY'S trial - Juvenile offenders and the punisment (abolition

Christopher Simmons was seventeen years old and still a junior in high school when he murdered a woman in the State of Missouri. Because he was seventeen, he was outside the jurisdiction of the juvenile court system and was tried as an adult. After he had turned eighteen, he was sentenced to death. He exhausted all avenues of appeal. However, before he was executed, the Supreme Court of the United States in the Atkins decision ruled that the Constitution should be interpreted to say that mentally retarded persons cannot be executed. This gave Simmons new hope. He appealed his death sentence, arguing that the reasoning in Atkins should be used to establish that the Constitution prohibits the execution of juveniles who were under eighteen when their crimes were committed.

The Supreme Court of Missouri agreed and overturned his conviction but further appeals led to the case being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. In a close five to four decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution prohibits the execution of offenders who were under the age of eighteen when their crimes were committed. The Court stated that the Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions. The right flows from the basic precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offence. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated "By protecting even those convicted of heinous crimes, the Eighth Amendment reaffirms the duty of the government to respect the dignity of all persons." The prohibition must be interpreted using "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

The Court said that capital punishment must be limited to those offenders whose extreme culpability makes them the most deserving of execution. It set out three differences between juvenile offenders and adults, which demonstrate that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified as among the worst offenders:

* Juveniles are susceptible to immature and irresponsible behaviour, making their conduct not as morally reprehensible as adults.

* Their vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their environment.

* Because juveniles are still...