In the case Roper v. Simmons, Christopher devised a plan to kill lady named Mrs. Crook after a previous encounter. He planned this murder with two other boys with only one showing up to assist with the murder. The other boy was younger than Simmons and was prosecuted within the juvenile system. Simmons was sent through the adult court system because he had already reached the age of 17 and was subject to adult court. The plan that was carried out was a home invasion where they bound Mrs. Crook with duct tape and electric cords and threw her over a bridge to drown. The plan was carried out and Mrs. Crook was later found by a fishermen after her husband had reported her missing. Simmons went on to brag about the killing to friends
…show more content…
Kentucky as the basis for sentencing juveniles to death for murder. Prior to Roper v. Simmons Courts could issue juveniles under 18 but older than 15 death sentences for murder ("Juveniles and the Death Penalty," n.a., p. 1). Roper v. Simmons overruled Standard v. Kentucky thus making the sentencing anyone under the age of 18 when the crime was committed unconstitutional. In my opinion, in a case like Simmons, adult court is where the trial and sentencing needed to be held. This young man planned a premeditated murder and carried it out in detail. One could argue that a person who would do such a thing does have mental issues, however, absolutely no lenience should be allowed based solely on age. I agree that a 17 year old is not fully developed, however, they are old enough to understand what death is. I agree with the Supreme Court that a death penalty awarded to someone under the age of 18 is inhumane and cruel, but I strongly believe life in prison for such a crime at age 17 is warranted. My argument is made out of a balance of retribution and the future safety of society. Rehabilitation, if it is still possible, should be a focus for the offender himself. That’s why I think judicial waivers are best in these types of situations. States can use discretionary or mandatory transfers to adult court. In the Simmons, this would have been the best waiver
Kentucky as the basis for sentencing juveniles to death for murder. Prior to Roper v. Simmons Courts could issue juveniles under 18 but older than 15 death sentences for murder ("Juveniles and the Death Penalty," n.a., p. 1). Roper v. Simmons overruled Standard v. Kentucky thus making the sentencing anyone under the age of 18 when the crime was committed unconstitutional. In my opinion, in a case like Simmons, adult court is where the trial and sentencing needed to be held. This young man planned a premeditated murder and carried it out in detail. One could argue that a person who would do such a thing does have mental issues, however, absolutely no lenience should be allowed based solely on age. I agree that a 17 year old is not fully developed, however, they are old enough to understand what death is. I agree with the Supreme Court that a death penalty awarded to someone under the age of 18 is inhumane and cruel, but I strongly believe life in prison for such a crime at age 17 is warranted. My argument is made out of a balance of retribution and the future safety of society. Rehabilitation, if it is still possible, should be a focus for the offender himself. That’s why I think judicial waivers are best in these types of situations. States can use discretionary or mandatory transfers to adult court. In the Simmons, this would have been the best waiver