Transcript Capital Punishment Atkins v. Virginia Roper v. Simmons

Capital Punishment
Atkins v. Virginia
Roper v. Simmons
Elizabeth Howell
3/6/06
Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
•
Background: Atkins was sentenced to death for capital murder. The Virginia
Supreme Court upheld the death sentence, rejecting the argument that he should
not be sentenced to death due to his mental retardation.
•
Issue: Is execution of mentally retarded criminals “cruel and unusual punishment”
prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?
–
Is the punishment excessive (i.e. not proportional to the offense)?
•
Look to evolving standards of decency (Trop v. Dulles): Is there national
consensus against MR DP?
– Objective factors:
1) Legislative developments
2) Sentencing trends
– Court’s own judgment (Coker v. Georgia)
•
Held: Execution of mentally retarded criminals is unconstitutional in light of the 8th
Amendment prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
–
Overruled Penry v. Lynaugh, 1989
The States
Many ways to count states’ legislation:
Stevens Majority:
• 18 states and the Fed prohibit MR DP
• 3 states almost prohibited MR DP
• “It is not so much the number of these States that is significant, but
the consistency of the direction of that change.”
Rehnquist Dissent:
• 18 states limit DP based on MR
• “19 other states besides Virginia” leave MR DP to be decided by
judge/jury
Scalia Dissent:
• 18 of 38 DP states prohibit MR DP, but only 7 prohibit all executions
(i.e. applying to crimes and sentences pre-legislation)
The Opinion Polls – Footnote 21
• FN 21: “[P]olling data shows a widespread consensus among
Americans…that executing the mentally retarded is wrong.”
• This claim was based on 27 public opinions polls.
• A “random sample” of the questions:
“Mentally retarded defendants should be given the death penalty when they commit capital
crimes.” (CA, 1997)
74% disagree
17% agree
9% no opinion
“Would you vote for the death penalty if the convicted person is mentally retarded?” (LA, 1993)
77.7% no
9.2% yes
13% uncertain
“Should the Carolinas ban the execution of people with mental retardation?” (NC/SC, 2000)
64% yes
21% no
14% not sure
“Do you favor or oppose the death penalty for mentally retarded individuals convicted of serious
crimes, such as murder?” (USA, 1998)
61% oppose
27% favor
12% not sure
“Would you support the death penalty if you were convinced the defendant were guilty, but the
defendant is mentally impaired?” (USA, 2001)
63.8% no support
16.4% support
19.8% not sure/no answer
Strength:
• Together, the polls covered a wide variety of populations (15
states and the nation)
Weaknesses:
• Widely different questions (some not even provided)
• Many polls did not account for constant no’s (those who
would never apply DP) or wobble (might) category
• Most did not define MR, and those that did defined it in
different ways
• Most did not provide context or mention jury context
Possible Improvements
• New polls to improve consistency and
operationalization
• Polls in states with legislation prohibiting
MR DP and in states allowing MR DP to
compare?
• Analysis of sentencing trends (similar to
Fagan and West juvenile death sentence
study)
Questions
• Did the social science really matter here?
• Better way to establish consensus?
• Does this case just change the fight into
one about who qualifies as mentally
retarded? Advantages and disadvantages
of this?
Roper v. Simmons, 2005
•
Background: Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death for a murder he
committed at age 17. The Missouri Supreme Court set aside the death
sentence based on the reasoning in Atkins v. Virginia.
– Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988) previously prohibited capital punishment
for offenders under 16.
– Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) held that the 8th and 14th Amendments did
not prohibit offenders 16 and 17 years old from being sentenced to
death. In 1989, 22 of 37 DP states allowed DP for 16 year old
offenders; 25 of 37 permitted it for 17 year old offenders.
•
Issue: Is execution of juveniles under 18 prohibited by the 8th and 14th
Amendments?
Held: Execution of juveniles under 18 at the time of their crime is
unconstitutional under the 8th and 14th Amendments.
– Overruled Stanford
•
Juvenile Culpability: APA Brief and
the Brain Scans
• “Science confirms that adolescent offenders [ages 1617] exhibit deficiencies this court has identified as
warranting exclusion from the death penalty.”
– Brain imaging studies
– Presented as analogous to MR deficiencies, except not
permanent.
– Brain studies post-Stanford
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths:
• Consistent with behavioral observations and studies
• Less susceptible to bias?
Weaknesses:
• Developmentally, 18 is an arbitrary line to draw.
• Constant improvements in science – what if new
knowledge challenges the technique, conclusions, etc?
• Implicit and explicit analogizing to MR is problematic,
practically
Juvenile Culpability: Steinberg &
Scott
Should juveniles be punished to the same extent as adults who commit
similar crimes?
–
3 differences between adolescents and adults (which Kennedy
catches on to)
1) Cognitive and psychosocial immaturity  immature
decision-making
–
Peer influence, risk perception, future-orientation, selfmanagement
2) Vulnerability to negative influences, coercion
–
Relatively less pressure will seem “extraordinary” to
adolescents; heightened group risk-taking
3) Adolescent personalities not fully formed, so criminal
behavior less likely to reflect “bad” character
–
APA does not allow diagnosis of Antisocial Personality
Disorder before age 18
The Culpability Research:
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths:
• Substantial literature and a variety of studies reaching similar
conclusions
Weaknesses:
• Mostly self-report, paper and pencil studies
• Studied population not generalizeable to adolescent criminals; most
research was on students and teenagers in laboratories
• “At this point, the connection between neurobiological and
psychological evidence of age differences in decision-making
capacity is indirect and suggestive.” (Steinberg & Scott) – but it is
presented as conclusive, and the court takes it as such.
• Not specific to the legal conception of maturity at age 18
• Peer pressure studies mostly use hypothetical pressure
Suggestions
• Research specifically on juvenile
offenders’ (and perhaps those at risk)
decision-making and maturity
• Study to determine whether there are
differences in decision-making for “minor”
crimes (drinking, drugs, minor theft) vs., as
in JDP, murder?
• Simulate decision-making situation in
addition to self-report and written
Establishing National Consensus
State Legislation: Counting Conundrums Revisited
Kennedy majority: 30 states prohibit JDP (incl. 12 states with no DP)
• Prof. Emens’ “Denominator Dispute” argument that 30 is the
relevant number because juveniles are a lesser included
group in DP.
– O’Connor dissent: Emphasizes that, unlike MR DP, 8 states
explicitly set 16 or 17 as minimum age for DP
– Scalia’s dissent: 18 states prohibit JDP, including 4 states that
have adopted such legislation since Stanford (1989). WA
doesn’t count for purposes of “consensus” because it was court
action.
– Fagan and West Study: In 15 years after Stanford, 6 states
passed statutes ending JDP, and WA Supreme Court said DP
statute excluded juveniles under 18.
• 6 states prohibiting JDP since Stanford includes KS and NY
which reinstituted the death penalty post-Stanford, but
disallowed JDP at the same time
Other State Legislation
– Voting age, jury service, marriage w/o parental
consent
– Comparisons useful for justifying the line being drawn
at 18, but administratively, it is easier to make
individual determinations of culpability in capital
murder cases than in, for example, voting
preparedness.
A Decline in JDP Sentences?
Fagan and West Study:
• 1990-2003; “simple cross-sectional prospective analysis
of patterns and trends at the state level for each year
beginning in 1990”
• JDP relative to juvenile homicide arrest, and compared
to young adult defendants (18-24) to isolate juveniles
• “Death sentence for juveniles” vs. “juveniles sentenced
to death” – multivariate analysis uses only new
sentences
• Database including all death sentences from 1990-2003
(from official data sources and Streib’s index)
Results
1) Descriptive analyses of trends in juvenile and adult death sentences
• Showed juvenile death sentences were declining at a greater rate
than adult death sentences (in high and low death sentence states)
2) Multivariate tests
• To test whether the trends noted by descriptive analysis are the
result of an evolving standard opposing JDP.
• “The decline in juvenile death sentences is statistically significant
after we control for competing explanations for its decline…results
are consistent across different measurement and analysis
conditions.”
How does the court (mis)use the
statistics?
• Scalia: ”It is, furthermore, unclear that
executions of the relevant age group have
decreased since we decided Stanford.”
– Scalia cites Streib, whose data was used in
Prof. Fagan’s study; also Streib says JDP
sentencing is declining. So, why such
different conclusions?
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths:
• Entire population for relevant period used
• Multivariate analysis to buttress descriptive analysis observations
and control for other factors (such as juveniles vs. 18-24 yrs)
• Exclusion of resentences
• Tested robustness using alternate assumptions
Weaknesses:
• “[A] statistically reliable analysis of the preferences of prosecutors is
probably beyond the capability of social science.” Prosecutorial
discretion is a factor in JDP, but difficult to gather data on this
aspect.
• Is decline in JDP sentences really evidence of an evolving standard
that opposes all JDP? Perhaps just an evolving standard that
heavily disfavors JDP while retaining it for rare occasions?
Other Approaches?
Improvements?
Brain scans:
• Perform scans specifically on groups of
juvenile offenders to determine if, as a
group, their brain development tracks that
of other adolescents
Establishing Consensus:
• Polls? (though problematic)