Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Stanford v Kentucky
14
STANFORD V KENTUCKY
STANFORD BACKGROUND
STANFORD BACKGROUND
-Stanford grew up without a father
-Mother was a cocaine addict
-Stanford was physically and sexually abused as a child
-When he has twelve years old he used alcohol and marijuana daily
Key Players
Key Players
Antonin Scalia
-
Majority
William Rehnquist
-
chief justice
Sandra Day
O'Connor
-
Concurrence
William J.
Brennan Jr
-
Dissent
CRIME COMMITED & SENTENCES
Timeline
07/03/1989
26/06/1989
07/01/1981
Oral arguments were heard 27 March 1989.
January 7th 1981 - Kevin Stanford and an acomplice robbed a gas station, raped the female attendant, Barbel Poore, repeatedly then brought her to a back alley and shot her pointblack in the face, then again in the back of the head.
Stanford v. Kentucky was a United States Supreme Court case that sanctioned the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were at least 16 years of age at the time of the crime
2003
ARRESTATION
In 2003, the Governor of Kentucky Paul E. Patton commuted the death sentence of Kevin Stanford, an action followed by the Supreme Court two years later in Roper v. Simmons overruling Stanford and holding that all juvenile offenders are exempt from the death penalty.
After Stanford's arrest, a Kentucky juvenile court conducted hearings to determine whether he should be transferred for trial as an adult, and, stressing the seriousness of his offenses and his long history of past delinquency, found that certification for trial as an adult to be in the best interest of Stanford and the community.
ARGUMENT OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
ARGUMENT BEFORE THE COURT
Capital punishment on those who are 16 and 17 years old is not cruel and unusual punishment.
Quoted the Ford v. Wainwright trial (1986) "those modes or acts of punishment... considered cruel and unsual at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted"
the age of protection against the death penalty was fourteen
STANFORD DEFENSE
STANFORD'S DEFENSE
The death sentence for minors goes against"evolving standards of decency"
Stanford had a rough background and should be able to seek rehabilitation
Stanford was a minor (17 and 4 months) at the time he committed the crime and therefore should be protected under the "evovling standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society", as decided by the Trop v. Dulles trial in 1958.
Many international conventions prevent countries from using the death penalty for juvenile offenders-people who commit crimes and are under eighteen years old. The countries that ratify these agreements believe children under eighteen are too young to understand the meaning of their crimes.
MAJORITY
Executing people for crimes they commit when sixteen or older is not cruel and unusual punishment
Scalia said whether a punishment is cruel and unusual depends on the standards of decency in American society.
COURT OPINION
American society approved of executing juvenile offenders. If such executions do not offend the standards of decency in the United States, they do not violate the Eighth Amendment
MINORITY
MINORITY
American society approved of executing juvenile offenders. If such executions do not offend the standards of decency in the United States, they do not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Many important organizations opposed the death penalty for juvenile offenders.
Most countries in the world had outlawed the death penalty completely or at least for juvenile offenders. The United States even had signed international treaties that prohibited juvenile death penalties.
death penalty is to punish offenders and discourage other criminals. Executing juvenile offenders does not serve these purposes
juveniles are not old enough to understand their crimes and control their conduct, reform is more appropriate than punishment.
Criticisms of the doctrine
Criticims of the doctrine
First, it seems relevant to note that when a crime is committed by a black person against a white person, American judges seem to be more severe.
Secondly, the decision seems rather arbitrary, it does not consider all the mitigating circumstances of Kevin Stanford's responsibility which tend to a less severe sanction.
Moreover, it is possible to add that contrary to what the State and the Supreme Court maintained, the application of the death penalty to a 17-year-old minor could be interpreted as cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the 8th Amendment of the American Constitution. The execution of juvenile offenders was cruel and unusual.
Finally, the number of mistaken executions as to the identity of the convicted persons also makes one wonder about the nature of the sentence applied. In fact, the Supreme Court refused to consider polls or public opinion, which represented a national consensus against the death penalty for minors aged 16 and 17.
DISCUSSIONS QUESTIONS
1. Do you think Kevin Stanford's actions were worthy of the death penalty ?
3. Should age be a big factor in deciding "evolving standards of decency" ?