McDaniel 1

Ellie McDaniel

AP Government and Politics

Mrs. Conway

19 February 2020

Roper v. Simmons

At the age of seventeen, Christopher Simmons orchestrated and committed a crime of

first-degree murder. Simmons, colluding with Charles Benjamin (age fifteen) and John Tessmer

(age sixteen), planned, committed, and later boasted about the murder of Shirley Crook on

September 9, 1993 (“Roper v. Simmons” Legal Information). Simmons and Benjamin both

confessed to breaking into Crook’s home and stealing approximately six dollars before

kidnapping her. The two drove her in her van to the nearby Meramec River, where they wrapped

her face in duct tape, tied her hands and feet with electrical wire, and threw her into the river.

Shirley Crook drowned, and her body was recovered later that day (Raeburn, “Too Immature for

Death”).

It was the rampant boasting of Simmons that lead the police to the trio of boys.

Christopher Simmons was taken for questioning, and shortly thereafter confessed to the crime.

Per Missouri law, as he was 17, Simmons was tired as an adult and charged by the state with

burglary, kidnapping, stealing and first-degree murder (“Roper v. Simmons” Legal Information).

Tessmer, who knew of the intent to murder but did not accompany Simmons and Benjamin, was

cleared of charges in exchange for testimony. Benjamin was convicted of being an accomplice to

murder, as well as burglary and kidnapping.

As for Simmons, as he was found guilty, the state pressed for the death penalty, stating

amongst other things that the crime “involved depravity of mind and was outrageously and
 McDaniel 2

wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman” (“Roper v. Simmons” Justia Law), all criteria for the

death penalty. The jury was instructed to account for Simmons’ age and the nature of the crime

when determining his sentence. Regardless, the jury recommended capital punishment, despite

Simmons being a minor. The judge complied, and he was sentenced to death. Simmons would go

on to get a new attorney and file for post-conviction relief- a form of appeal in which new

evidence may be entered- on the account that he had insufficient counsel during his trial. After

having this reviewed and the plea denied by appellate courts, Simmons filed a direct appeal, only

to be rejected again. (“Post Conviction Relief”). 

The case was not appealed again until a ruling was passed in the case of Atkins v.

Virginia, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty could not be used on those

who were found to be mentally retarded (“Atkins v. Virginia”). By the standard set in Atkins,

which stated the legal definition of mentally retarded as someone who, while capable of

determining the difference between right and wrong, lacks among other things, an ability to

control impulses, the defense argued that being a minor made Simmons mentally retarded by

legal definition. The State of Missouri Supreme Court agreed and lowered the sentence to life in

prison without parole.

Historically, the court had put a significant determination of what the legal requirements

for the death penalty were on the international consensus (“Roper v. Simmons” Legal

Information). The most recent case brought to the Supreme Court regarding age and the death

penalty had been Stanford v. Kentucky, which determined that those under the age of eighteen

and above sixteen were eligible for capital punishment due to the national consensus at the time

(“Stanford v. Kentucky”). The case of Roper v. Simmons was brought before the Supreme Court

by the US government out of concern that the Missouri State Supreme Court contradicted the
 McDaniel 3

ruling in Stanford. The question at hand was: “Does the execution of minors violate the

prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" found in the Eighth Amendment and applied to

the states through the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment?” (“Roper v.

Simmons” Oyez).

The trial, as noted in briefs submitted by the American Psychological Association and

others, took place during a renaissance of neurological study. Whereas psychological

development had previously been thought to reach its completion at approximately twelve years,

scientific studies were being performed, which pointed to a much later growth at closer to twenty

years (“Roper v. Simmons” American Psychological). Because of this, the case attracted the

attention of significant medical and psychological associations. 

Amici Curiae (friend of the court) briefs were filed by numerous interested parties, most

notably the European Union (EU), who expressed interest in the US maintaining a refusal to

execute minors when the case was still at the state level (Wilson, In the Supreme Court). Nearly

all these briefs called for the court to set the standard that juveniles were not subject to the threat

of the death penalty.

In the Supreme Court, James Layton argued the case of the petitioner, named formally as

Donald Roper, superintendent of the Potosi Correctional Center, where Simmons was held. Seth

Waxman argued the case for the respondent, Christopher Simmons. The case was submitted on

October 13, 2004, and decided March 1, 2005, by the Rehnquist Court (“Roper v. Simmons”

Oyez). 

Layton’s case revolved primarily around the idea that having a set standard of age is

unfounded by scientific proof. Scientific studies show a gradual stretch towards maturity, and

everyone is different in when and how they reach a fully matured age. The significant interest of
 McDaniel 4

Supreme Court Justices focused on the position of the EU (“Roper v. Simmons” Oyez). They

historically have barred the practice of executing minors in accordance with their rules. The EU

itself had submitted an amicus curiae brief when the case was at the level of Missouri State

Supreme Court, which strongly suggested that the court rule against the execution of minors

(Wilson, In the Supreme Court). Layton was quick to dismiss the idea that America should

model itself after the practices of Europe and that even though allowing the execution of minors

in the US would make it one of the only countries to do so, this would not make it “unusual.”

Layton argued that the court should adopt a principle, as had already been decided in Stanford,

which set the absolute minimum at sixteen years of age, and leave the ultimate decision up to the

states (“Roper v. Simmons” Oyez). 

Waxman, similarly to Layton in the use of scientific research, was particularly insistent

on driving home the idea that the morality of one so young as sixteen to seventeen is adaptable

and will change many times over the years, more so than adult’s personalities do. Waxman

argued that the young so frequently change characters as they and their brains are still

developing. The death penalty used on someone who was underdeveloped would, therefore,

constitute “cruel and unusual.” The Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia counter-argued: “We

punish people, criminals, for what they were, not for that they are.” (qtd. Oyez). 

The court ruled in a 5-4 opinion that yes, capital punishment of a minor did constitute as

“cruel and unusual” and is prohibited by the eighth amendment. The opinion cited the

overwhelming push from state legislators to declare the death penalty of minors unconstitutional

(“Roper v. Simmons” Oyez). The court pointed out that only the worst offenders are subject to

the death penalty. Those who are underage, and thus by legal definition set in Stanford, are

mentally retarded, cannot be classified as such (“Roper v. Simmons” Justia Law).

 McDaniel 5

The opinion of the court was written by Justice Kennedy, who was sided by Justices

Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer. Justice Stephens wrote a concurring opinion, joined by

Justice Ginsburg. In the court opinion, Justice Kennedy explained that the standards used for the

death penalty reflect the views of society. In cases such as Stanford, the societal consensus held

that the minimum age of capital punishment was sixteen. The amount of resistance that the court

met in response showed a shift in ideology and that sixteen was no longer an appropriate age

(“Roper v. Simmons” Legal Institute).

The court stressed that though capital punishment of minors was legal, it had only been

used in three states. Many states had adopted specific laws regarding the minimum age. In cases

such as Atkins, the opinion states, the court yet again evolved to meet the standard set by

consensus. Those who are by law mentally retarded cannot be subject to the death penalty as

they are held to be emotionally and psychologically underdeveloped compared to those who are.

Because of the severity of capital punishment, the highest form of scrutiny is essential to

determining the culpability. The court cites three criteria that set adolescent offenders apart from

adults. First, that juveniles are immature, second, that they are incredibly susceptible to outward

influence, and third, that the characteristics of their personalities are considerably unformed.

These combine to provide mitigating, or lessening, factors in the ability of a minor to be held

accountable to the degree of the death penalty (“Roper v. Simmons” Justia Law).

Regarding the concern that the raising of the minimum age in that it may encourage

crime by those who are in that sixteen to seventeen range, the court does not expect a significant

rise in cases. The fact is that the US was the only first-world country to allow the use of the death

penalty on minors. While the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment is solely in the hands of

the US government, there have been other cases by which the court deferred to laws in other
 McDaniel 6

countries. In concurrence, Justices Stevens and Ginsburg only further reinforce the idea that the

court’s interpretation of the amendments must be willing to change in accordance with societal

evolution (“Roper v. Simmons” Legal Institute). 

Justice O’Connor wrote a separate dissenting opinion from the others, which highlighted

her strong feelings that though adolescents are generally less mature, there are certainly some

who are capable of comprehending the outcomes of their actions and committing vicious crimes.

She stressed the idea that because of the widely varying state laws on capital punishment, there

has yet to be a national consensus reached. Thus, the court should not force standards upon the

states, as it is entirely within their power to decide the legality and requirements of the death

penalty. O’Connor also brought to attention the actions of the Missouri State Supreme Court,

which ruled in contradiction to the decision in Stanford, which set the age at sixteen. She

addressed the court’s refusal to acknowledge the occurrence where the other justices would not.

She made it clear that the Supreme Court was to remain superior, and the actions taken by the

Missouri State Supreme Court would not be tolerated again (“Roper v. Simmons” Justia Law).

Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion, joined in opposition by Chief Justice

Rehnquist and Justices O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas. The dissent was scathing to say the least,

in which Justice Scalia made it clear that the definition of change does not extend to the

constitution, but only to the court. By this, he stated that while the court may be subject to

evolving societal views, the Eighth Amendment is not. This cements the idea that the moral

standards of the nation are not to be decided by nine individuals but left up to the states and,

therefore, the people to determine what is morally acceptable in the case of capital punishment.

The dissent cited the fact that only eighteen states had passed laws prohibiting the execution of

those under the age of eighteen and pointed out that this hardly constitutes a majority consensus.
 McDaniel 7

The twelve states that have banned the use of the death penalty did not consider the criteria that

were employed in the ruling of Roper: maturity, impressionability, and character. The dissent

claimed the court orchestrated a false majority to create a national consensus.

Furthermore, the dissent asserted that by drawing a clear line at the age of eighteen, the

court thereby states that no one under said age is capable of a murder worthy of the death

penalty. This interpretation is something that Justice Scalia and his associates found to be both

inaccurate and of increasing concern. The dissent rebuked the idea that one had to be of a certain

age to understand the gravity of murder. Similarly, it dismissed the notion that the US should

conform to the standards set by the rest of the world, citing that the US is under the rule of its

constitution and not the constitutions of other nations (“Roper v. Simmons” Justia Law).

It is important to note that for the exceptions of Justice O'Connor, who dissented, and

Justice Kennedy, who concurred, the justices' opinions follow a pattern that resembles their

ideologies. While Justice Scalia, writer of the dissenting opinion, held a doctrine that was less

conservative than that of Justice Thomas, the tone and passion of his dissent made it clear that

his position was strong and sharp. Justice Stevens, who's doctrines are the farthest left of the

Rehnquist Court, wrote the concurring opinion. His associates who agreed with him all hold

beliefs that err on the side of liberal. This pattern coincides with the respective views of the

liberals (left) and the conservatives (right) on the matter of capital punishment. Justice O'Connor,

who broke the trend by dissenting, issued a personal opinion as to why she did so separate from

the other justices.

Interestingly enough, it was Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion for the court though

his ideologies were farther right than that of Justice O'Connor. With the dissent of O'Connor, it

was Kennedy, therefore, who provided the swing vote needed to secure the verdict in favor of
 McDaniel 8

Simmons. Despite these two outliers, the trend remains that those more liberal justices are prone

to restrictions on capital punishment more than their conservative counterparts (“Roper v.

Simmons” Oyez).

Before the ruling of Roper v. Simmons, thirty states prohibited capital punishment of

minors and the mentally retarded. Twelve of those states had banned the death penalty, while

eighteen had forbidden the practice specifically on those groups. Effective immediately after the

ruling in Simmons, no state was permitted to execute offenders who had committed the crime

when under the age of eighteen. The twenty states who previously allowed this were required to

demote the sentences to life in prison without the opportunity of parole ("Roper v. Simmons"

Justia Law).

While those on death row experienced a significant impact, Roper had little to no effect

on the court system's treatment of juvenile offenders. Those under the age of eighteen are still

able to be tried as adults and sentenced to adult prisons as opposed to juvenile correctional

facilities. The outcome of the case did, however, create several new questions, particularly

regarding the point at which a criminal is considered beyond reform and whether or not a life in

prison really is better than death. It was questions like these that lead to the rulings of Graham v.

Florida (2010), which prohibits a mandatory sentence of life without parole for minors convicted

of homicide, and Miller v. Alabama (2012), which prohibits sentencing minors to life without

parole entirely (Levik, “Tenth Anniversary of Roper”).

In regards to the correctness of the ruling, the court's decision in Roper has yet to be

overturned. If the exasperation expressed by the justices during the case- as Roper was the

second death penalty case to be argued before the Supreme Court in fifteen years- is anything to

go by, it will not be brought to court again for some time. However, as Justice Scalia alluded to
 McDaniel 9

in his passionate dissent, the court is anything but stagnant, as are the American people. Though

the ruling in Roper has yet to be reconsidered by the court, the national consensus that the

justices were so concerned about preserving is ever-changing, as demonstrated by the increasing

leniency toward minors shown by cases like Miller and Graham. Thus, the correctness currently

remains a matter of opinion more than a fact, and until the consensus changes and the justices

rule again, it will remain so (“Roper v. Simmons” Oyez).

As for Christopher Simmons, he is a few months away from turning forty-five. While he

was never executed, he continues to serve his sentence of life without the opportunity of parole

in Missouri State Correctional Center and will be doing so for the foreseeable future (Levik,

“Tenth Anniversary of Roper”).

.
 McDaniel 10

Works Cited

“Atkins v. Virginia.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 20 June 2002,

www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZS.html.

Levick, Marsha, et al. “Celebrating the Tenth Anniversary of Roper v. Simmons: One Small Step

for Christopher Simmons, One Giant Step for Juvenile Justice Reform.” HuffPost, 7 Dec.

2017, www.huffpost.com/entry/celebrating-the-tenth-anniversary-of-roper-v-

simmons_b_6777134.

“Post Conviction Relief.” Appeals Law Group, www.appealslawgroup.com/appeals-

attorney/post-conviction-relief/.

Raeburn, Paul. “Too Immature for the Death Penalty?” The New York Times, The New York

Times, 17 Oct. 2004, www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/too-immature-for-the-

death-penalty.html.

“Roper v. Simmons.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological

Association, www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/roper.

“Roper v. Simmons.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 1 Mar. 2005,

www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html.

“Roper v. Simmons." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633. Accessed 17 Feb. 20

 McDaniel 11

“Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).” Justia Law,

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/.

“Stanford v. Kentucky.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute,

www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/492/361.

Wilson, Richard J. In The Supreme Court of the United States.

capitalpunishmentincontext.org/files/resources/juveniles/juvSimmonsEUamicus.pdf.