The Supreme Court showed its arrogance in the Roper vs. Simmons ruling, declaring that the will of the people of several states, as expressed through their state legislators, was out of touch with an “evolving standard of decency.”

The facts of the case make clear the absurdity of their decision, but it isn’t the decision itself that is the greatest travesty. The real injustice is in the rationale given by the Justices. A reader responded to my first column on the topic, claiming, “If you read the majority opinion, you will see that it is based off of case law and enactments of legislature.”

Such is not entirely so. The case law cited was more to show that “evolving standards” are a legitimate basis for judicial decisions. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited case after case where courts had resorted to judicial activism to alter previously decided law. In other words, because previous courts usurped the power of the state legislatures and Congress, this court may do so as well.

Furthermore, much of the case law cited was an effort to say that if enough state legislatures pass a law, then that equates to a “national consensus,” and thus should become federal law. This is a ludicrous and absurd notion. If such were so, then how do we deal with the fact that 29 states allow any non-felon to obtain a permit and carry a concealed weapon? Does that not demonstrate a “national consensus?” Is the Supreme Court not obligated, according to their own twisted logic, to force the other 21 states to recognize the right of any non-felon to carry a concealed weapon? I’m waiting, Justice Kennedy. Apply your reasoning consistently.

Abusing the appeal to precedent was not the worst offense committed by this court. The most egregious transgression was the appeal to international opinion. The court noted that execution of juveniles was prohibited “by other nations that share our Anglo-American heritage, and by the leading members of the Western European community.” Justice Kennedy also referred to “the overwhelming weight of international opinion.”

Not even the most liberal person among us can, with a straight face or a clear conscience, claim that “international consensus” is a legitimate basis for the interpretation of the Constitution of the Unites States. Justice Kennedy states, “the stark reality [is] that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty…Yet at least from the time of the Court’s decision in Trop, the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’”

So let me get this straight – The Supreme Court of the United States should look to international opinion, law and treaty to decide whether our own laws are constitutional? If so, then our options are wide open. The kinds of things allowed or prohibited by the laws of other nations are beyond counting. These justices appealed to the laws of western Europe. What if, in the future, a majority of judges decides to cite the laws of China or Sudan as justification for a decision?

Everything about this decision is frustrating, but little is more so than the response of a reader who wrote “that the execution of one who committed a major felony as a juvenile is cruel because of the tender age of the offender at the time.”

“Tender age?” Seventeen is hardly a tender age. It so happens -- perhaps by sheer coincidence -- that I was once 17 years old. And I am not so far removed from that tender age that I cannot remember it. At seventeen I knew, without reservation or hesitation, that walking out of the store without paying for a two-cent piece of gum was stealing. Had anyone suggested that we could tie a woman with electrical wire, wrap her face in a towel and duct tape, and throw her off a bridge, I would have been on the phone to the police immediately.

We always try to respect the opinions of others because we hope to have others reciprocate. Civil debate depends upon each of us not only hearing out the other point of view, but also giving it honest consideration. How though, can anyone read the undisputed facts of this case and make any excuse for Christopher Simmons, who boasted that he killed his victim because “the b***h seen my face.” Is that the vocabulary of a tender child?

Justice Kennedy wrote that capital “punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit “a narrow category of the most serious crimes” and whose extreme culpability makes them “the most deserving of execution.”

If the crime committed by Christopher Simmons fails to meet those criteria then no one, anywhere, at any time or for any reason, deserves to be executed.

(Mike North writes a regular op-ed column for six newspapers in the southeast Tennessee, northwest Georgia and northeast Alabama region. He is a professional land surveyor with True Line Company, Land Surveyors. He is a former Walker County School Board member and a student of history and political science. He can be reached at
Mike@myhumbleopinion.net
His columns are at
Mike North Columns )