Juvenile Death Penalty Amicus Briefs

"BE IT RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes, in principle, the imposition of capital punishment upon any person for any offense committed while under the age of eighteen (18)"
–ABA policy against executing juveniles, adopted August 1983

On July 19, the American Bar Association submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Roper v. Simmons, No 03-633. Click here to read the brief, which argues that juvenile offenders generally do not have the heightened moral culpability that the Supreme Court requires for the imposition of the death penalty. Moreover, the reduced capacity of juvenile offenders means that retribution and deterrence rationales for the death penalty are inapplicable and that juveniles face a special risk of wrongful conviction and of receiving unjustified death sentences. Since 1989, when the Court held that the execution of individuals who commit crimes when they are 16 or 17 years old did not offend the Constitution, there have been significant developments in the law and society that necessitate reconsideration of this precedent.

Chris Simmons's attorneys filed their Respondent's brief to the Supreme Court on July 19. The brief explains that in the fifteen years since the Supreme Court first considered the constitutionality of the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-old offenders in Stanford v. Kentucky, advances in the scientific understanding of adolescent development and the consistent movement by legislatures and juries away from imposition of death on juvenile offenders have demonstrated that capital punishment of those under 18 is inconsistent with our society’s evolving standards of decency. The execution of juvenile offenders – like that of mentally retarded offenders – is both disproportionate to their personal moral culpability and contrary to national and worldwide consensus.

Various other organizations representing scientific, international, religious, child advocacy, legal, and other communities have expressed their opposition to the juvenile death penalty by filing amicus briefs in the Supreme Court. Below are links, without comment or endorsement, to other briefs submitted in this case. For more information about the briefs, see the Criminal Justice Reform Education Fund's Simmons web page and their national press release.

 

Science/Brain Development Briefs
	American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, National Association of Social Workers, Missouri Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, National Mental Health Association
	Science confirms that adolescent offenders at the ages of 16 and 17 exhibit the deficiencies this court has identified as warranting exclusion from the death penalty. Older adolescents behave differently than adults because their minds operate differently, their emotions are more volatile, and their brains are anatomically immature. To the extent that adolescents who commit capital offenses suffer from serious psychological disturbances that exacerbate the already existing vulnerabilities of youth, they can be expected to function at substandard levels. Executing adolescents does not serve the recognized purposes of the death penalty.
	American Psychological Association, Missouri Psychological Association
	Behavioral studies and recent neuro-psychological research demonstrate that execution of those who were under 18 years old when their offenses were committed violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Adolescents generally think and behave differently from adults in ways that undermine the rationale for sentencing adolescent offenders to death. Also, individualized capital sentencing proceedings do not reliably account for the mitigating effect of adolescence.
Back to Top
International Briefs
	Bar of England and Wales, Human Rights Advocates, Human Rights Watch, World Organization for Human Rights USA
	International law and opinion have informed the law of the United States from the Declaration of Independence forward. The Founders were greatly influenced by international legal and social thought; throughout the history of this country, courts have referred to international standards in considering the permissibility of practices under the Constitution. This is particularly true with respect to the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause. Of particular relevance have been the law and opinions of the United Kingdom.
	48 Nations: The European Union (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom); The Council of Europe (Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom); Canada; Iceland; Liechtenstein; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; and Switzerland
	Amici assert that the execution of persons below 18 years of age at the time of their offenses violates widely accepted human rights norms and the minimum standards of human rights set forth by the United Nations. Thus, amici believe the U.S. position on the execution of juvenile offenders is out of step with the international community.
	Recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize: President James Earl Carter, Jr., United States of America; President Mikhail Gorbachev, Former U.S.S.R.; President F.W. de Klerk, South Africa; President Lech Walesa, Poland; Shirin Ebadi, Iran; Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Argentina; President Oscar Arias Sanchez, Costa Rica; Archbishop Desmond Tutu, South Africa; The 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso), Tibet; American Friends Service Committee, United States of America; Amnesty International, England; Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, Northern Ireland; International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, United States of America; Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, Canada; Dr. Joseph Rotblat, United Kingdom; Betty Williams, Northern Ireland; Jody Williams, United States of America
	The prohibition on the juvenile death penalty is widely recognized as a rule of customary international law. The practice of nations almost universally rejects the juvenile death penalty. As a consequence, in a series of decisions against the United States, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has found that the customary international law bar on the juvenile death penalty has evolved to jus cogens status. All nations are bound by jus cogens prohibitions because they "derive their status from fundamental values held by the international community" and violations of such prohibitions are "considered to shock the conscience of humankind." The unusual strength and clear definition of the international prohibition on the death penalty for offenses committed by children under 18 years old makes it particularly relevant to this Court's decision whether to extend Eighth Amendment protection in this case.
	Former U.S. Diplomats: Morton Abramowitz, Stephen W. Bosworth, Stuart E. Eizenstat, John C. Kornblum, Phyllis E. Oakley, Thomas R. Pickering, Felix G. Rohatyn, J. Stapleton Roy, Frank G. Wisner
	Based on their longstanding experience representing the United States abroad, these diplomats believe that permitting a few select states in the United States to continue the aberrant practice of executing juvenile offenders increasingly isolates this nation from our close allies and impairs U.S. foreign policy interests at a critical time.The execution of juvenile offenders is regularly condemned by international and regional bodies and has been expressly rejected in law and in practice by nearly every other country in the world. The continuation of this practice by a few states in the United States strains diplomatic relations with close American allies and needlessly places U.S. diplomats abroad on the defensive at a critical juncture in our foreign policy agenda.
Back to Top
Religious Organizations
	United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Episcopal Church, USA, Presbyterian Church, United Methodist Church, American Baptist Church, USA, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, American Jewish Committee, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, United Church of Christ, Alliance of Baptists, American Friends Service Committee, American Jewish Congress, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Church Women United, Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, Mennonite Central Committee, Community of Christ, American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Unitarian Universalist Association, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Union for Reform Judaism and the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Bruderhof Communities Church International, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Engaged Zen Foundation, Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Prison Dharma Network
	The Supreme Court has made clear that the views of religious organizations are "[a]dditional evidence" (536 US, at 316 n.21) of a broad social and professional consensus against the imposition of the death penalty for a particular class of persons. Because of their age and immaturity, minors lack the degree of culpability that would place them in the category this Court has described as those "most deserving" to be put to death.
Back to Top
Child Advocacy Groups
	Children's Defense Fund; Child Welfare League of America (CWLA); Voices for America's Children; National Association of Counsel for Children; Physicians for Human Rights; Children's Action Alliance; California Women Lawyers; Bar Association of San Francisco; Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia; Juvenile Law Center; Northwestern University School of Law's Bluhm Legal Clinic Children and Family Justice Center; National Center for Youth Law; Youth Law Center; Youth Advocate Program International; Children's Law Center, Inc.; Central Juvenile Defender Center; Georgetown Law Center Juvenile Justice Clinic; Legal Services for Children; Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health; Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic; Children's Law Center of Los Angeles; San Francisco Public Defender's Office; Office of the Child Advocate in New Jersey; State of Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate; Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana; Pacific Juvenile Defender Center; Mid-Atlantic Juvenile Defender Center; National Network for Youth; Office of the Juvenile Defender in Vermont; Children's Law Center of the University of Richmond School of Law; New England Juvenile Defender Center, Inc.; Criminal Justice Institute; Northeast Regional Juvenile Defender Center; Carolina Legal Assistance; Southern Juvenile Defender Center; New Mexico Women's Justice Project; Office of the Maricopa County Public Defender; Wisconsin Council on Children and Families; The Sentencing Project; Center on Children and Families; Florida Public Defender Association; Midwest Juvenile Defender Center; Juvenile Justice Initiative; Southwest Regional Juvenile Defender Center; Northwest Juvenile Defender Center; JustChildren; Virginia Coalition for Juvenile Justice; W. Haywood Burns Institute for Juvenile Justice Fairness and Equity
	In the fifteen years since this Court ruled the execution of 16- and 17-year-olds constitutional in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 US 361 (1989), a consensus has plainly emerged about youth's analogous disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment and control of their impulses, as well as their lesser moral culpability for crimes they commit, such that Stanford must also now be overruled. This consensus is reflected, inter alia, in the growing body of legislative and judicial restrictions on the rights and responsibilities of youth under 18 since Stanford was decided, the emergent research on adolescent development as it impacts culpability and the deterrence of youth, and the special risk of wrongful execution because of youth's special vulnerability to confessing to crimes they did not commit. As in Atkins, to continue to execute 16- and 17-year-olds in the face of these changes in the national consensus would run afoul of the Eighth Amendment's proportionality analysis. Included in this brief is the Health Professionals' Call to Abolish the Execution of Juvenile Offenders in the United States, endorsed by more than 420 prominent health professionals and organizations across the country.
Back to Top
Legal Organizations
	Attorneys General of the States of New York, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, and West Virginia
	An enduring legislative consensus has emerged against executing juvenile offenders, rendering these executions unconstitutional. Furthermore, 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 states have moved toward prohibiting juvenile executions, they have also enacted stricter juvenile justice laws that expose juveniles to adult criminal liability. That many states treat juvenile offenders like adults, but make an exception when it comes to capital punishment, reflects a considered judgment that death is inappropriate for juvenile offenders.
	Coalition for Juvenile Justice
	Like the mentally retarded, juveniles have developmental limitations and deficiencies that make them less able to assist counsel, more likely to make false confessions, and overall more likely to be wrongfully convicted or wrongfully sentenced to death. This erosion of basic rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments is unacceptable and warrants the categorical exclusion of juveniles from the death penalty.
	The Constitution Project
	There is a growing consensus against the death penalty for minors based upon the fact that adolescents do not possess the level of moral responsibility and culpability that society expects of an adult. Neither of the two ostensible goals of the death penalty, deterrence nor retribution, are served by the punishment. Also, the risk of error in juvenile convictions and sentencing is unduly high.
	NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., American Civil Liberties Union, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Bar Association, National Urban League Institute for Opportunity and Equality, National Black Police Association, National Conference of Black Lawyers, National Black Law Students Association
	Due to the special circumstances of adolescence, defendants who are under the age of 18 are more vulnerable to disparities in the criminal justice system than adults. Disproportionate sentencing of minorities to death is a particular problem of concern to amici.
	National Legal Aid and Defender Association
	This brief focuses on line-drawing and demonstrates that the appropriate age below which a juvenile cannot face capital punishment is 18. Throughout the American legal system, age 18 is the recognized dividing line between adult responsibilities and childhood. Furthermore, state laws, as well as low rates of death sentences for and executions of juvenile offenders, provide objective indicia reinforcing that 18 is the most valid age at which to set the line for the ultimate punishment.
Back to Top
Other Briefs
	The Missouri Ban Youth Executions (BYE) Coalition, which includes: Citizens for Missouri's Children, Missouri Catholic Conference, Missouri Juvenile Justice Association, Missouri Association for Social Welfare, Missouri National Education Association, Catholic Services for Children & Youth, Jewish Community Relations Council, Church Women United of Missouri, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Missouri, National Association of Social Workers, Missouri Chapter, Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, Vision for Children at Risk, Youth Council for Positive Development, American Friends Service Committee, Missouri, Frederick Douglass Coalition, Grass Roots Organizing (GRO), Institute for Peace and Justice, Mid-Missouri Fellowship of Reconciliation, Missouri Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants, Missourians to Abolish the Death Penalty, University of Missouri-Columbia Students Against Youth Executions
	The execution of minors serves no legitimate penological purpose in light of emerging evidence documenting the limited capacities of juveniles in general and juvenile offenders in particular. Missouri's experience demonstrates an unacceptable risk of wrongful death sentences resulting from the use of a juvenile's age as an aggravating circumstance rather than a mitigating circumstance. The execution of juvenile offenders violates contemporary standards of decency on a national level as well as in Missouri itself.
	Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation
	The use of the death penalty for minors should not be justified in the name of victims, since victims are not a monolithic group and have differing views on the use of capital punishment for murderers. Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation contends that the foundation of justice rests upon universal principles of human rights, as articulated in numerous instruments of international law which prohibit the use of the death penalty for offenders under the age of 18.
Back to Top
Briefs filed on behalf of Donald Roper, Petitioner
	Justice For All Alliance
	State Attorneys General of Alabama, Delaware, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Virginia