Stanford v. Kentucky
Stanford v. Kentucky is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutionality of executing individuals who were juveniles at the time of their capital offenses. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, upheld the execution of individuals over the age of sixteen, emphasizing that historical practices in the United States allowed for such penalties. Scalia's opinion reflected on the execution of juveniles, noting that many states still permitted the death penalty for those aged sixteen and above, suggesting that contemporary standards did not prohibit this practice. However, the ruling also implied that executing individuals younger than sixteen might be unconstitutional. The dissenting justices argued against this view, positing that current societal standards of decency should prevent the execution of juveniles. This case is situated within broader discussions on juvenile justice and the evolving perspectives on capital punishment in the United States. It highlights the tension between historical precedent and contemporary ethical considerations surrounding the treatment of young offenders.
Stanford v. Kentucky
Date: June 26, 1989
Citation: 492 U.S. 391
Issues: Capital punishment; juvenile justice
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld executions of juveniles who committed murder.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority sustaining the execution of persons who were juveniles over the age of sixteen at the time they committed the capital offense. Scalia reviewed the practices of capital punishment in the United States at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. He found a large number of executions of those under eighteen and a significant number of those under seventeen. Scalia argued that contemporary standards of decency still allowed the execution of juveniles in most states, at least above age sixteen. Without directly setting a minimum age, the Supreme Court implied that it might be unconstitutional to impose a death penalty on those under sixteen at the time of the offense. Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, and John Paul Stevens dissented, arguing that contemporary standards of decency prohibit the death penalty for juveniles when all factors from the states are taken into account.
