Issue One: May a lower court overrule a precedent established by the Supreme Court (before the Supreme Court acts to do so) when it appears that the Supreme Court would likely overrule the precedent itself if given the opportunity?

Issue One: May a lower court overrule a precedent established by the Supreme Court (before the Supreme Court acts to do so) when it appears that the Supreme Court would likely overrule the precedent itself if given the opportunity?

Argument #1: Prior Supreme Court Precedents

A lower court may not overrule a precedent of the Supreme Court, even if it appears that the Supreme Court will eventually overrule the precedent itself. The lower court must apply the existing law until the Supreme Court overrules its prior precedent, if it chooses to do so. The Court addressed this issue in Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson American Express, Inc (1989).

Arguments #1; #2: Prior Supreme Court Precedents; Supreme Court Rejected Similar Cases

If the Supreme Court agrees with the Missouri Supreme Court on the merits of this case and holds that the execution of a seventeen year old violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the issue of whether or not the lower court had the power to overrule Stanford v. Kentucky would be moot. Therefore, the Court need not address this issue at present.

Argument #2: Supreme Court Rejected Similar Cases

It is not apparent that the Supreme Court is about to overrule the precedent it established in Stanford v. Kentucky. Over the past several years, the Court has refused to grant stays of execution (or has vacated stays of execution granted by lower courts) to individuals asking the Court to reexamine its holding in Stanford and to now declare that the execution of individuals for murders that they committed under the age of eighteen violates the Eighth Amendment. See Patterson v. Texas (2002), In re Stanford (2002), and Mullein v. Hain (2003).

Issue Two: Whether the execution of an individual for murder who was seventeen years old at the time of the crime violates the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Argument #1: Issue Previously Addressed

In Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), the Supreme Court addressed this very issue and held that the execution of individuals for murders that they committed at either age 16 or 17 does not violate the Eighth Amendment.

Issue Two: Whether the execution of an individual for murder who was seventeen years old at the time of the crime violates the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Argument #1: Issue Previously Addressed

The fact that the Supreme Court has previously addressed an issue is not an absolute bar to the Court's reexamining the issue if the prior holding is no longer applicable or appropriate (Editor's Note: For instance, Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, struck down school segregation as unconstitutional though the Court had upheld "separate by equal" segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896).

Argument #2: Overruling Precedent

This precedent has been relied on by several states, including Missouri, to draft their capital punishment statutes (execution permitted for individuals that committed first-degree murder at ages 16 and higher).

Argument #2: Overruling Precedent

In Trop v. Dulles, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment encompasses "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Since Stanford was decided in 1989, society has evolved to the point where it no longer permits the execution of individuals for crimes that they committed under the age of 18. The Court needs to reexamine this issue.

Argument #3: National Consensus

Trop v. Dulles established the precedent that the Eighth Amendment encompasses "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Although Simmons argues that society had evolved to this point, there has been no rush on the part of legislatures in the wake of Stanford to raise the minimum age for execution to 18. (There had been a rush to prevent mentally retarded individuals from being executed in the wake of the Court's decision in Penry v. Lynaugh). Moreover, the federal government historically set the minimum age for execution at 16, and the results of several polls demonstrate that the public supports the execution of juveniles under certain circumstances, i.e. school shootings or if the crime was particularly heinous. Thus, the severity of the crime, and not the age of the perpetrator, should determine the sentence.

Argument #3: National Consensus

A national consensus has evolved prohibiting the execution of individuals for crimes that they have committed before 18 years of age. Only three executions of individuals for crimes they committed under 18 have been carried out since Stanford, and only a handful of death sentences for such individuals have been handed down during this time. Since the Stanford decision, several states have raised the minimum age for execution to 18.

Argument #4: International Law and Executing Juveniles

The U.S., as a sovereign nation, retains the authority to establish its own laws. The U.S. has refused to agree to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child in large part because that convention would prohibit the execution of 16 and 17 year olds. Even if a practice is prohibited in most of the world, this does not dictate that it must be prohibited here. Furthermore, under the Supreme Court's current death penalty jurisprudence, the criterion for determining "evolving standards of decency" is confined to the United States, not the world at large. Looking solely at the U.S., no national consensus has yet arisen condemning this sort of behavior.

Argument #4: International Law and Executing Juveniles

The vast majority of countries prohibit the execution for juveniles (persons under the age of 18). Perhaps only the U.S. and Iran continue this practice. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which President Clinton signed (with a reservation to the prohibition of the juvenile death penalty) but the Senate has yet to approve, also prohibits the execution of juveniles for crimes that they committed under the age of 18. Since so many other nations have already approved this convention, it is arguable that the prohibition of executing persons for crimes committed under the age of 18 is now a binding element of international law.

All adults have gone through adolescence, but how many adults have killed someone during this stage of their lives? True, 16 and 17 year olds may be impulsive and fail to think about the consequences of their actions, but even such individuals must know that murder is a very grave wrong–especially when it consists of duct- taping a woman, driving her in a vehicle to a bridge, and pushing her into a river to drown. Simmons knew exactly what he was doing. Indeed, he had made comments on several occasions that he "wanted to kill someone" and found two other individuals willing to help him perpetrate this crime.

Argument #5: Competency of Juveniles to Understand the Consequences of their Actions.

Scientific evidence shows that 16 and 17 year olds are impulsive and do not think about the consequences of their actions. Moreover, their brains are not developed to the point of full adults (adults usually being defined as ages 20 and higher) and they are still trying to "find themselves." Moreover, the backgrounds of such individuals may also influence their actions. For instance, persons who have grown up in abusive households are more prone to violence (in this case, Simmons' father was an alcoholic who sometimes beat him). Though these factors do not mitigate the heinousness of the crime, they do show that death is not the appropriate punishment.

Argument #6: Eighteen as a Minimum Age for Execution

Eighteen is an arbitrary age which the government has selected for a variety of reasons, i.e., age to hold property, vote, etc. However, the government is free to raise it or lower it for appropriate reasons in certain circumstances.

Argument #6: Eighteen as a Minimum Age for Execution

The government has set 18 as a minimum age for many activities, i.e., serving on a jury, gambling (in many states), being considered a legal adult, etc. It stands to reason that 18 should also be the minimum age for executing criminals.