University of Kentucky
Too Young to Die: The Execution of Minors and the Role of International Law in Constitutional Interpretation
Institution
University of Kentucky
Faculty Advisor/ Mentor
Robert Tannenbaum
Abstract
In light of the ongoing discussion of the role of courts and the process by which they interpret and apply the law, this paper examines issues of interpretation. The United States Supreme Court has decided cases using domestic and international law as sources of authority, and has made decisions in which those areas have clashed. These conflicting laws are especially evident in the Court's decisions on capital punishment. In Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), the Supreme Court decided that the death penalty for juveniles was Constitutional before overturning that decision in Roper v. Simmons (2005). The U.S. was the only country in the world to legally permit the execution of juveniles when Roper was decided, an indication of other nations' disapproval of capital punishment for minors and of the growing condemnation of the death penalty in general in the international community. Roper became the first case to significantly cite international norms as an argument against domestic law, specifically death penalty statutes. In this short period, the Supreme Court's approach shifted, and shifts such as this often bring up the question of judicial activism. This paper attempts to explain the complexities of these decisions and to examine the implications for the future of capital punishment deliberations by the Supreme Court.
Too Young to Die: The Execution of Minors and the Role of International Law in Constitutional Interpretation
In light of the ongoing discussion of the role of courts and the process by which they interpret and apply the law, this paper examines issues of interpretation. The United States Supreme Court has decided cases using domestic and international law as sources of authority, and has made decisions in which those areas have clashed. These conflicting laws are especially evident in the Court's decisions on capital punishment. In Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), the Supreme Court decided that the death penalty for juveniles was Constitutional before overturning that decision in Roper v. Simmons (2005). The U.S. was the only country in the world to legally permit the execution of juveniles when Roper was decided, an indication of other nations' disapproval of capital punishment for minors and of the growing condemnation of the death penalty in general in the international community. Roper became the first case to significantly cite international norms as an argument against domestic law, specifically death penalty statutes. In this short period, the Supreme Court's approach shifted, and shifts such as this often bring up the question of judicial activism. This paper attempts to explain the complexities of these decisions and to examine the implications for the future of capital punishment deliberations by the Supreme Court.