In Re Stanford

Background

A person filed an original petition asking the Court to stop his execution because he was under 18 when he committed the crime. Thirteen years earlier the Court rejected that argument in Stanford v. Kentucky (1989). The petitioner asked the Justices to reconsider that earlier ruling in light of recent developments, and Justice Stevens wrote a lengthy dissent urging review.

Reasoning

Justice Stevens argued that the Court’s recent decision in Atkins v. Virginia, which barred execution of mentally retarded people, supports reconsidering juvenile executions. He noted that many States and one State supreme court have since forbidden executing those under 18, that neuroscientific evidence shows adolescents are less mature, and that public and legislative trends run against juvenile executions. Despite these points, a majority of the Court declined to grant argument or change the prior rule.

Real world impact

Because the Court denied the petition, the existing legal position from earlier cases remains in place and the petitioner’s request to bar his execution was not granted. The dissent makes clear that some Justices see a growing national consensus against executing juvenile offenders, but the Court’s refusal means that any change must come from future Court action or from legislatures and state courts. This decision leaves the status quo for juvenile death-penalty cases unchanged.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens, joined by three other Justices, would have heard argument and reconsidered the rule, arguing juveniles generally lack the maturity for death sentences and urging an end to the practice.