- The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 13, 2004


A deeply divided Supreme Court wrestled yesterday over whether to allow states to execute killers who committed their crimes as minors, with several justices raising concerns that the United States is out of step with the rest of the world.

Nineteen states allow capital punishment for juveniles, and more than 70 people who committed crimes as 16- and 17-year-olds are on death row.

The question for the justices is whether those executions are unconstitutionally cruel, the latest step in the Supreme Court’s re-examination of capital punishment in America.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the dividing line between adults and children is 18, the minimum age “to vote, to sit on juries, to serve in the military.”

The high court already has barred the death penalty for the mentally retarded and for people younger than 16.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, expected to be a swing vote, said he was troubled by chilling details of the murders committed by juveniles and the thought of erasing a deterrence for future crimes. But he also noted that the rest of the world opposes the death penalty for minors.

People with sleeping bags arrived at the court before midnight in hopes of getting a seat for the argument, which was a lively debate on subjects such as gang violence, scientific evidence about brain development of teens and world condemnation of juvenile executions.

Juvenile offenders have been executed in just a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia.

Seth Waxman, the attorney for the killer in this case, said those countries since have gone on record opposing capital punishment for minors.

“We are literally alone in the world,” he said.

Justice John Paul Stevens asked whether the court should ignore that America’s global respect was on the line in the case.

Missouri’s solicitor, James Layton, said the court should not be swayed by “what happens in the rest of the world.” He said capital punishment decisions about age should be made by legislatures, not courts.

The Supreme Court has looked increasingly at international opinion, and its four most liberal members have gone on record against a practice they said was “a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society.”

Justices are considering a case involving the kidnapping and killing of a Missouri woman. Two teens forced the victim, wearing only underwear and cowboy boots, into a van and later threw her off a bridge to drown.

Christopher Simmons, then 17, was sentenced to die for the 1993 murder, but Missouri’s highest court overturned the death sentence last year. A younger teen was sentenced to life in prison.

Supporters of the death penalty, including families of victims, traveled to Washington for the landmark case.

“The death penalty is reserved for the worst of the worst. It is not just for adults,” said Dianne Clements, president of the victims’ rights group Justice For All. “It doesn’t matter how old the killer is. What matters is that your loved one is gone.”

Simmons, meanwhile, has big-name supporters.

Former President Jimmy Carter said the Supreme Court should recognize that “basic principles of American justice require rejection of child offender executions once and for all.”

Dr. C. Everett Koop, a former surgeon general, said scientific research shows that “juveniles are underdeveloped and immature, particularly in the areas of the brain that dictate reason, impulse control and decision-making.”

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Justice Kennedy probably will cast the swing votes, as they did two years ago, when justices barred executions of the mentally retarded on a 6-3 vote.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide