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.
|
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...
|
|
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...
|