Is the death penalty unconstitutional for juveniles?

Summary of Roper v. Simmons:

Seventeen year old Simmons and Benjamin made a pact to kill an elderly woman with whom Simmons had previously gotten into a car accident. Simmons tied the woman up and threw her off a bridge, drowning her in the river below. Simmons was charged with burglary, kidnapping, stealing, and first-degree murder. He was tried as an adult. Simmons was found guilty on all charges, and was sentenced to death. Simmons appealed his conviction to the Missouri Supreme Court, which overturned his death sentence and instead sentenced him to life in prison with no possibility of parole. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The issue in this case is Can an individual who committed capital murder at seventeen years of age be sentenced to death?  Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority.

He held no. The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution prohibit cruel and unusual punishment, and the execution of an individual who committed capital murder before he reached eighteen years of age classifies as cruel and unusual punishment. Under Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), the law allowed for such an execution. However, since that decision was handed down, the United States has become the only country in the world that allows for the execution of juvenile offenders. The United Nations in that time period has also ratified a convention document prohibiting the imposition of capital punishment upon individuals under the age of eighteen. The rest of the world has decided that capital punishment for juvenile offenders is cruel and unusual, and the United States should be no different. Therefore, the rule of law from Stanford no longer controls, and Simmons’s sentence to life imprisonment without parole is affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion. The United States should be making its own laws and interpretations of those laws rather than looking to other countries and what they decide to do. The United States does not benchmark its judicial interpretations against other countries in other matters, especially regarding the separation of church and state. The United States is also one of only six countries to allow for legal abortions. Should that law be changed as well because most other countries do not believe in it? The Supreme Court should be making its decisions based on its own beliefs, not the beliefs of others.

Reflection:

            In my opinion the issue of whether or not the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment when applied to those under 18 years old is NOT a question that is best answered by the court.  The United States Constitution does not require that states allow the death penalty is simply does NOT PROHIBIT it. If our views on the death penalty more specifically who may be subject to it have changed, then all that is needed to reflect society’s view is to PASS A LAW. There is nothing unconstitutional about a law banning the death penalty just as there is nothing unconstitutional about a law that allows it. The views of the current society are best reflected through legislatures NOT THE SUPREME COURT. Asking and expecting the Supreme Court to change the constitution every time society has a different view towards an issue that is NOT expressly mentioned in the constitution is to essentially make nothing of the document.