If I were a justice on the Supreme Court, in Roper v. Simmons, I would have voted along with the justice on dissent; however, I do not agree with the execution of juveniles, but life in prison for Christopher Simmons should have never been negotiable. As the presiding justice for the Supreme Court, my decision for Simmons would have been life in prison pending that he goes through a series of evaluations. Every case law in the United States is presided by other case laws. However, in Christopher Simmons’s case, he was seventeen at the time of his confession, in which he bragged about his illustration of the crime; therefore, as justice, I would have taken into account Simmons motivation to commit murder.
In the case Atkins v. Virginia, which was used to decide Simmons’s case had no fundamental similarities; however, Atkins’s case was ruled by the court that it was unconstitutional to force the death penalty on a mentally disabled person. Therefore, during my research; the courts never sought out that Simmons
…show more content…
(Roper v. Simmons, 2005) As the justice of the Supreme Court, there needs to be an end to "totality of the circumstances" in some juvenile offender’s cases. If every juvenile offender's attorney claim age as a “reasonable grounds” to have their case overturned this will become a continuous problem throughout the United States. The Court has recognized that juveniles lack maturity in judgment, have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility, are vulnerable to adverse influences than adults, impulsive, reckless, risk-taking, and cannot extricate themselves from detrimental crime producing situations. (Elrod & Ryder, 2014) However, some juveniles commit crimes because they know that there is no punishment more considerable than the crimes they