Skip navigation
sponsored by 

Juvenile execution banned for three reasons

Supreme Court decision uses controversial rationale

Video: Crime & courts  
California OKs same-sex marriage
May 15: California's Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage, making California the second state to allow gay couples to wed. NBC Chief Justice Correspondent Pete Williams reports.

  Stand and be counted
Gut Check America

What keeps you up at night? Gut Check America wants you to tell us what really matters to our country. Click here to learn more and get involved.

  Photo features  
  More
Image: A young boy plays in Lake Malawi
Reuters
  The Week in Pictures
Natural disasters devastate parts of Myanmar and China, while natural – and human – wonders in Chile and Switzerland strike awe.
Image: University fire
AP
PhotoBlog
View and discuss the pictures and issues that caught our eyes.
Pete Williams
Justice correspondent

By Pete Williams
Justice correspondent
NBC News
updated 1:30 p.m. ET March 1, 2005

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court declared the execution of anyone under the age of 18 to be unconstitutional on Tuesday, effectively ending a practice used in 19 states. NBC's Justice Correspondent, Pete Williams, explains the implications of the ruling.

What was the rationale for the court's decision?

Pete Williams:  The court analyzed the question of whether it is constitutional to execute offenders who were 16 or 17 when they committed their crimes, under the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement

What the court said it had to do is see if there is "an emerging national consensus" on the question and it concluded there is.

FREE VIDEO
March 1: NBC's Pete Williams explains the arguments cited by Supreme Court justices in the ruling on juveniles and the death penalty.

MSNBC

Some of this is mathematical. The court says that of the states that still had the juvenile death penalty, five of them in the past 15 years have decided to ban it, through legislation or court decision. In the rest of the states, the number of juvenile executions has dropped.

The second reason the court cited is the scientific evidence.  

The court said there is widespread agreement among mental health experts that people under the age of 18, in general, are less morally responsible for their crimes: their minds are less well developed, they're more susceptible to peer pressure and they're less culpable, morally, for what they do.  The court said there is less evidence that people under 18 are irretrievably immoral.  And the decision says, there's a greater possibility for these people to improve their characters.

Finally, the court said — and I think this is a very controversial part of the decision, sure to be widely debated — if you look around at what the rest of the world is doing, the United States is the only country left that still executes offenders who were 16 and 17 when they committed murderers. 

It said look at the number of countries who, within the past five to ten years have moved away from it  — Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Congo. America is one of the only ones left. And therefore, the Supreme Court says the international community has moved away from it as well.  The court said that's also a reason the death penalty should be struck down for juvenile offenders.

It was a close decision.  What was the minority point of view?
In the 5-4 decision, the dissent was very spirited.  Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the four dissenters — Scalia, Sandra Day O'Conner, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist — said the court's math is all wrong. The reason states don't execute as many juveniles now, Scalia said, is that juries are capable of taking youth into account. 

Justice Scalia bitterly denounced the majority's reliance on international law.  He says it is entirely inappropriate for the Supreme Court to look at what the rest of the world is doing, because the Supreme Court doesn't do that all the time.  The court, he says, just picks and chooses times when it wants to look at international consensus.  It doesn't do it on abortion, he says. 

He thinks that is not the way for the United States Supreme Court to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

What are the implications of the decision?
This will affect about 73 juvenile offenders who are currently on death row and it means from now on, no state may seek the death penalty for an offender who was 16 or 17 when the crime was committed.

Incidentally, it was 15 years ago when the United States Supreme Court said the death penalty is unconstitutional for anyone under 16.  This decision dealt only with 17 or 18 year olds.

Pete Williams is NBC News' Justice Correspondent and is based in Washington, D.C.
Rate this story LowHigh
 • View Top Rated stories

Sponsored links

Resource guide

Search Jobs

Find your next car

Find Your Dream Home

Find a business to start

$7 trades, no fee IRAs