Supreme court vs state

Though the Supreme Court delivered the judgment on March 1, 2005 in the Roper Vs Simmons, it is not one specific issue and backed by 20 years feedback involved regarding juvenile death sentence. In the case of Thomson Vs. Oklahoma it was decided by the Supreme Court that there is violation of Eight Amendment of the Constitution whereas it was clearly mentioned that the offenders who are under the age of 16 should not be executed for death sentence.

In this case, the District Attorney filed a petition to treat the juvenile as adult and the trial court granted death sentenced to the death and the appellate court also accepted. Then the Supreme Court interfered and made judgment stating that it is unconstitutional. But surprisingly after one year later, in the case of Stanford Vs. Kentucky, the Supreme Court declared that execution of juvenile for death sentence is not unconstitutional and hence such executions treated as constitutional.

During 2002, the Supreme Court, reexamination again made the in the issue of Stanford Vs Kentucky and opined that the juvenile death penalty should be reexamined. Mr. Scott Hain as last juvenile in the United States who has been sentenced for death. Based on the above, it is clear that the courts are acting with the constitution for which it is the primary responsibility and they should act within the act. Hence there is a chance again and again the death sentence may be given in future also if the constitution still exists.

So it is inevitable to the United States to make the amendments to the constitution to such extents that death sentence should not be given to the juveniles. The rights of juveniles under ROC i. e. Rights of Children should not violated at any stage either nationally or internationally INTERNATIONAL The United States enters with the agreement like ICCPR and American Convention on Human Rights in 1977. While signing, the United States reserved the right the article of 6 of ICCPR.

The article says that death penalty should not be imposed on the persons who are under eighteen years of age at the time of crimes. The death penalties directly prohibited by multilateral international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the child and the American convention on human rights. It is remarkable the United States reserves the right to ignore the ban on execution juveniles. But it is only country who gat such reservation among 144 signatories.

The United States’ reservation objected by the eleven countries. Many countries view the United States reservation is human rights violation. During the August 2000, the United Nations Sub commission reiterated its decision that the execution of juveniles violates customary international law. When all the other countries accepted, why the United States should not accept. The whole world is thinking one angle and the United States thinking in different angle instead to accept its mistake.

Really it is wonderful though the constitution allows death penalty for juveniles which is established constitution, still the Supreme gives its direction to ban the death sentence to the juveniles is attraction of rights of child issue. The only countries still execute the minors are Iran, Congo and of course, the United States. Because the Supreme Court decision may be reversed as long as as constitution allows the death penalty to the juveniles. The upholding of death penalty to the juveniles in the United States is not the first time. It is also remarkable of United States view.

Because the international accepted minimum age of 18 for imposition of death penalty was established in 1949. Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian persons in the of War stated that the younger people was under of 18 cannot receive the death penalty. Greatly the United States ratified this convention 1955 and did not make any reservation on it and it was continued more than half of century. It is during time war time decision. If it is all, the why the Unite States should insist on the same issue during the peacetime.