Should the US Supreme Court decide on such issues as the juvenile death penalty?

Answer 1

The answer to this question depends on your on social and political ideology.

People who support capital punishment for juveniles may not approve of the Supreme Court having authority to overturn legislation imposing death for crimes committed while a person was under the age of 18, as they did in Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005). Some might not understand that the Court's decision, which was based on constitutional interpretation, held that imposing the death penalty on this group of offenders was a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, a decision they were able to make without concern for populist pressure.

The ruling in Roper follows a long line of Supreme Court decisions removing the death penalty from cases involving those with extremely low IQs or found guilty of rape or other crimes in the absence of capital murder, as cruel and unusual punishment, an issue Congress chose not to address itself. It also follows a trend in many states toward abolishing capital punishment altogether.

Detractors of these decisions are likely to oppose the Supreme Court's right of judicial review, in general, as illegitimate because the power isn't explicitly assigned in the Constitution.

Anyone who questions the Founding Fathers' intent with regard to the power of the Judicial branch may consider Alexander Hamilton's words in The Federalist Papers, Number 78, an essay predating constitutional ratification and discussing the role of the judiciary in the United States' tripartite government.

Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 78 [Excerpts]:

"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post factolaws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing."

and

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute theirwill to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature,in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

Hamilton logically asserted that Congress cannot judge the constitutionality of their own laws, because the conflict of interest would prevent them from properly evaluating their decisions in a manner protective of constitutional rights. Judicial review is a check on the power of the Legislative branch, designed to prevent Congress from becoming despotic and controlling government. Judicial review is intended to ensure the other two branches adhere to the Constitution as closely as possible. The system is imperfect and sometimes damaged by application of personal or political bias, but remains the best method for maintaining balance in the Republic.

So yes, in my opinion, it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty, whether individuals agree with the specific decision or not.

The Supreme Court's role in government is to safeguard the Constitution, the ultimate will of the people, and prevent the other branches from abrogating assured protections. Because all legislation is necessarily tied to political ideology, Supreme Court decisions will always be unpopular with a segment of the population and government. This is an unavoidable product of partisanship, arising from a lack of shared values and goals, and makes the Supreme Court's role in evaluating government policies, such as executing juveniles, all the more important.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.