NCJ Number
133980
Journal
Villanova Law Review Volume: 35 Issue: 3-4 Dated: (1990) Pages: 641-673
Date Published
1990
Length
33 pages
Annotation
The 1989 United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of capital punishment for 16-and 17-year-old offenders is incomplete, because it did not consider international norms and jury sentences and did not respond to the changing public attitudes toward capital punishment.
Abstract
The decision in Stanford v. Kentucky asserted that capital punishment for a juvenile was consistent with "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," it did not analyze the sentence with respect to whether it was cruel and unusual punishment. The court's reliance solely on State laws was inconsistent with precedent and may have a significant influence on future cases related to cruel and unusual punishment, because it gives States the power to determine the constitutional norm. In addition, the phrase referring to evolving standards of decency suggested that societal norms are developing continually, but did not necessarily suggest that contemporary values alone should determine norms. However, if other States enact death-penalty laws, capital punishment for minors will become the societal norm in the United States. Finally, the court's rejection of international norms is inconsistent with precedent in previous death penalty cases. This decision leaves the United States almost alone in tolerating capital punishment for 16-year-olds. 257 footnotes