Mitigating Factor

The court case Roper vs Simmons was one of the most influential Supreme Court cases that dealt with the issue of whether or not juveniles should receive the death penalty if they were under the age of 18 at the time they committed the crime. In this case, Simmons and a group of his friends planned to commit a burglary and a murder. On the night of the crime, “Simmons and his two friends entered the home of Shirley Crook. Simmons recognized Crook from a car accident they were involved in before; he “later admitted to the police that “this confirmed his resolve to murder her.” Simmons and his friends tied Crook up and put her into the truck of her car.

Florida courts are plagued with too many people appointed or elected who are entrusted with the sole responsibilities of doing out justice in their public official capacity, who often times suffer from the common syndrome of lacking the ability to separate the administration of justice from the imbuing of their very own interest and passion. Court Judges, prosecutors, and even law enforcement officers very often cannot resist the urge to impart their very own passions and interest into the administration of justice. Far too often an individual’s social, background, and even financial status plays a significant role into the courts official’s decisions and administration of justice. The decision to impose a stiff penalty as oppose to showing

In Roper v. Simmons there are two issues that must be addressed, the first being the issue of moral maturity and culpability. The defense in the trial phase of this case argued that Mr. Simmons was an at an age where he was not responsible enough to fully understand the effects and consequences of his actions. The majority draws on Atkins v. Virginia to argue that this specific precedent supports their case that the death penalty should not be imposed on the mentally immature or impaired. However, an important point to be made is that the Atkins v. Virginia decision is geared towards the clinical definition of mental retardation: significant limitations that limit adaptive skills. Also, another important question to consider is the competency and premeditation of Mr. Simmons’ crime in this case.

Georgie Milton did something not many people have the guts to do, he took the life of his best friend to save him from the torture that awaited him, but, he took the life of another man and he took this life with the intention of murder. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is no difference between euthanasia and murder; and to this indictment, George Milton has pleaded not guilty. If I am to prove him otherwise, you must find him so. Lennie Small has been described to us as a caring giant. He had no bad intentions; and it is fair to say that our witnesses have provided us with sufficient evidence to support my argument.

The offender decides whether or not the choice will be beneficial. Even though everything cannot be possibly thought out and planned by an offender perfectly but they can rely on the course things taking place at the time of the

In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the court ruled that the mentally retarded should not be tried for death penalty because they do not bear the proper guilt that even the worst adult criminal bears upon committing a crime. The mentally retarded have trouble reasoning and controlling their

The Court relied on distinct “strands of precedent” to justify its Miller conclusion. According to the Court, the two classifications for proportionality challenges are the length of term-of-years, accounting for the attendant circumstances; and categorical restrictions when imposing the death penalty (Darden, 2014). There were five factors introduced with Miller’s case by the Supreme Court. The five characteristics or consequences of juveniles’ immaturity relevant for mitigation of

To illustrate, this shows that accused people cannot be given punishments that are larger than the size of their crime. Lastly, death sentences are allowed, but must follow certain guidelines. The article from www.annenbergclassroom.org notes, “Except for a brief period in the 1970s, the death penalty has not been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court to be cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, Eighth Amendment challenges to the death penalty have focused on the methods used to carry out executions, whether certain offenders (for example, juveniles or the mentally retarded) should be subject to the sentence and whether death sentences are decided in a fair manner and by an impartial

The death penalty is a precedent set centuries ago as a method of punishment for severe crimes. In 1923, the state of Texas declared that those sentenced to death were to suffer through the electric chair by the hands of the state, instead of being hanged by the hands of the counties (TX Executions). Later on, Texas would adopt the lethal injection method. Many see the death penalty as an inhumane violation of the basic rights defined in the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, others may argue that it is unpractical to abolish the death penalty due to the voidance of justice.

To illustrate, this shows that accused people cannot be given punishments that are larger than the size of their crime. Lastly, death sentences are allowed, but must follow certain guidelines. The article from www.annenbergclassroom.org notes, “Except for a brief period in the 1970s, the death penalty has not been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court to be cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, Eighth Amendment challenges to the death penalty have focused on the methods used to carry out executions, whether certain offenders (for example, juveniles or the mentally retarded) should be subject to the sentence and whether death sentences are decided in a fair manner and by an impartial

It’s Not working out. By:Taija Jones. The 8th amendment says “Excessive bail shall not be required, Nor excessive fines imposed, Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” . With that being said if the 8th amendment applies for cruel punishments of death penalties then why is it still happening.

Sentencing a criminal who is mentally retarded is directly going against the Eighth Amendment, which attempts to ‘evolve standards of decency’ in our nation. The Supreme Court of the United States prohibited the execution with mental deficiencies in the Atkins v. Virginia case in 2002. The Constitution enforces a substantive limitation on the States’ abilities to take the life of a criminal who is mentally retarded. (ATKINS V. VIRGINIA, 2002) Ethnic discrimination, financial influences, and factors such as mental retardation are three huge reasons why it is morally necessary to refuse to use the death penalty as a suitable mean of punishment, for this method would time after time fall under the realm of unequal or unjust punishment.

For example, the parole and supervised release committee must take into consideration the victims opinion when considering a offenders release, thus limiting the boards ability to use it’s discretion on what they may be a more appropriate release date. The goals of the victim-witness program could also potentially limit the prosecutions ability to prosecute the offender for a longer sentence. For example, a victim could potentially want to forgive the offender for the harm they have been cause, therefore, seeking for a more lenient sentence then the prosecution may be seeking, thus constricting the prosecutions

The death penalty is a controversial issue that has been debated in the United States for a long period of time. In our own state of Texas, executing convicted criminals has become second nature. This is due to the fact that Texas has executed more people than any other state in the United States since 1976. So why does Texas lead the United States in executions? There are many reasons and factors that has led to this point.

Deterrence Theory A special case of the rational choice theory is the deterrence theory, which emphasizes the costs of legal sanctions (Liska & Messner, 1999). While the rational choice theory was initially applied to the field of economics, and considered all costs, the deterrence theory was initially applied to the field of law and only considered legal costs. Accordingly, as a deterrent for committing crime, increasing the severity of punishment, increasing the certainty of punishment, and increasing the celerity of punishment will all increase the legal costs for committing crime and, consequently, decrease the benefits versus cost ratio. Furthermore, there is a specific deterrence and a general deterrence (Barkan, 2006).