Pictures from Google Image Search

Stanford v. Kentucky

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States | 2005 | | © The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States 2005, originally published by Oxford University Press 2005. (Hide copyright information) Copyright

Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), argued 27 Mar. 1989, decided 26 June 1989 by vote of 5 to 4; Scalia for the Court, joined in whole by Rehnquist, White, and Kennedy and in part by O'Connor, who concurred in the judgment and concurred in part in the opinion; Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens in dissent. Stanford rejected the contention that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments forbids the execution of those who were juveniles when they committed the crimes for which they were convicted. The Court held that such a practice was not one of “those modes of punishment that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time that the Bill of Rights was adopted” (p. 361) and that it did not violate the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” (p. 369). By implication, however, the Court seemed to indicate that it would be unconstitutional for the state to impose the death penalty on a person who was under sixteen at the time of his or her offense.

The Court rejected the first prong of the two‐part test outright, since the common law at the time of the Bill of Rights set the minimum age for the application of capital punishment in theory at seven and in practice at fourteen. The Court found that at least 281 offenders under the age of eighteen, including at least 126 under the age of seventeen, had been executed in the United States.

The Court's rejection of the second argument—that evolving standards of decency were violated—was more involved. Considering the laws of the several states, both as enacted and as applied, Justice Antonin Scalia found that a majority of states allow capital punishment for those above the age of sixteen and rejected as irrelevant the defendants' contention that prosecutors rarely seek and juries rarely apply the death penalty to juveniles.

In dissent, Justice William J. Brennan argued that the evidence from the laws and practices of the states, properly interpreted, suggests that the imposition of the death penalty on juveniles violates “contemporary standards of decency” (p. 388).

In 2002, the Supreme Court rejected Stanford's petition for a reconsideration of his case and of the question of the constitutionality of executing those who were juveniles when they committed the crimes for which they were convicted.

See also Capital Punishment; Juvenile Justice.

William Lasser

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

KERMIT L. HALL. "Stanford v. Kentucky." The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. 19 Dec. 2009 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

KERMIT L. HALL. "Stanford v. Kentucky." The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. (December 19, 2009). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-StanfordvKentucky.html

KERMIT L. HALL. "Stanford v. Kentucky." The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press. 2005. Retrieved December 19, 2009 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-StanfordvKentucky.html

Learn more about citation styles

Related newspaper, magazine, and trade journal articles from HighBeam Research

(Including press releases, facts, information, and biographies)

Ancestral treasures go under hammer
Newspaper article from: The Scotsman; 3/19/2007; ; 700+ words ; ...home of the Earls of Mansfield and...XVI by the 2nd Earl of Mansfield...David Murray, 3rd Earl of Mansfield...statement, the 8th Earl of Mansfield said...A portrait of Heneage Finch, 1st Earl of Nottingham, by Sir Peter...

Related entries from encyclopedias, dictionaries, and thesauruses

Heneage Finch Nottingham, 1st earl of
Book article from: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Heneage Finch Nottingham, 1st earl of , 1621-82, lord chancellor of England. He took no part...general in 1670 and lord chancellor in 1675. He was created earl of Nottingham in 1681. In an age of corruption he added to his reputation...
Nottingham, Heneage Finch, 1st earl of
Book article from: The Oxford Companion to British History Nottingham, Heneage Finch, 1st earl of (1621–82). Finch was a barrister, son of one Speaker of the House...previous holder of the title, he was created earl of Nottingham. A skilful, hard-working, and conciliatory lawyer...
Heneage Finch
Book article from: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Heneage Finch see Nottingham, Heneage Finch, 1st earl of .
Daniel Finch Nottingham
Book article from: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Daniel Finch Nottingham 2d earl of, 1647-1730, English politician, son of Heneage Finch, the 1st earl. A staunch supporter...England). In 1711, Nottingham made a bargain with...united with that of Nottingham. Bibliography: See...

Find thousands of answers for hundreds of subjects at Smart QandA .

All answers verified by trusted sources at Encyclopedia.com

Try Smart QandA now!

For students and teachers!

Encyclopedia.com provides students and teachers facts, information, and biographies from verified, citable sources, including:

Encyclopedia.com provides students and teachers facts, information, and biographies from verified, citable sources, including: