Roper v. Simmons Ten Years Later, Part 3: Juvenile Justice and Developmental Research in the Post-Roper Era

Ten years ago, on March 1, 2005, the United States Supreme Court, in Roper v. Simmons, finally abolished the juvenile death penalty. It was a momentous day, but the history of the events leading to this victorious ruling remain, for the most part, in the memories and notes of the bold, smart and dedicated individuals who made it happen.

In celebration of the 10th anniversary of Roper, we invited some of those individuals to share their recollections and reflections on their work that culminated in this extraordinary decision.Through this 3-part blog series, we share those conversations with you. We recommend reading Part 1 and Part 2 before continuing to the post below.

Part 3: Juvenile Justice and Developmental Research in the Post-Roper Era

How did you feel when Roper was decided and the juvenile death penalty was abolished?

Laurie Garduque, Director of Justice Reform, MacArthur Foundation: Since I hadn’t followed the juvenile death penalty debate closely, nor was I an avid SCOTUS observer, I had no idea what the outcome would be. Outside of the actual decision, one of the most satisfying outcomes was the broad network that formed around producing the amicus briefs. Not surprisingly, the professional societies relied heavily on the Network’s research, and I was pleased to see how they consulted the juvenile death penalty legal advocates in saying the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment. On the other side of the coin, it was equally gratifying to see how the legal advocates got the developmental research right, and used it appropriately to argue the juvenile death penalty was unconstitutional. Of course, the outcome was extraordinary, and having the Network’s research play such an incredible role was immensely rewarding.

Victor Streib, Professor Emeritus: When cert. was granted for Roper in 2004, I feared that it was premature and that we needed a few more years to nail down this trend. Luckily, I was wrong. The Court thought that enough states had moved in that direction already. When Roper was decided on March 1, 2005, almost 30 years of my professional research came to an abrupt and very happy end.

Bernardine Dohrn: I remember vividly seeing the decision, knowing that we had won, and then reading the opinion with increasing astonishment. In particular, the majority description of why adolescents are categorically less culpable than adults, based on behavioral research and common knowledge, was extraordinary in its potential impact. For me, however, most remarkable was the five pages in the opinion about the isolation of the U.S. in international human rights law, citing of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the assertion that the practices of the world community are relevant to an analysis of the Eighth Amendment of U.S. Constitution. “In sum, it is fair to say that the U.S. now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.” In expansive language, the Supreme Court noted, “The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.”

Stephen Harper, Visiting Clinical Assistant Professor: I was euphoric. A small group of committed, ego-less juvenile justice lawyers had first alerted the public and then tapped into the public’s aversion to the juvenile death penalty. We had worked hard and kept our eyes on the prize. It became more and more clear that fewer juvenile offenders were being sentenced to death and that fewer and fewer states had it on their books. And, many states that did have it on their books did not have any juveniles on death row. It was clear that a national consensus was there. Ironically, the five juveniles scheduled for execution at the turn of the century galvanized our effort and the public’s consciousness and led to its quick end.

Steven Drizin, Clinical Professor of Law: It was a mixture of relief followed by pure, sweet ecstasy. I was relieved because I knew that if we lost it would be a long time before we’d have another shot, and I knew it was going to be a very close decision. After I read the decision, however, I was ecstatic – on Cloud Nine. It was a vindication of our reading of the tea leaves and a thrilling conclusion to years of hard work. And, the opinion left no doubt that the door had been opened for future challenges to other extreme sentencing practices.

David Fassler, MD: Although I was cautiously optimistic, I was very pleased when the decision was announced on March 1, 2005. I was particularly pleased that the Court clearly recognized that kids are different, and that the decision acknowledged the emerging science of adolescent brain development. Throughout my involvement with the case, I met and worked with a broad range of talented and dedicated attorneys, advocates and family members. I was proud to have played a small role in this impressive and effective coalition.

Patricia Puritz, Executive Director, National Juvenile Defender Center: Horribly sad at all the senseless loss. Jubilation at the possibilities moving forward. Enormous gratitude to my amazing colleagues who led the way and never stopped fighting until the job was done, at great personal and professional sacrifice. I had an abiding wish that we would call this victory “Simmons” instead of “Roper.” I’d much rather emphasize the winner. It was a righteous and honorable fight that I was proud to be a small part of.

What has Roper meant to you in terms of ongoing research? Do you see continuing opportunities to connect developmental and scientific research with our treatment of children charged with crimes?

Garduque: There had been doubts about supporting research as a path to reform the juvenile justice system. It turns out Roper not only validated the importance and value of research in changing policy and practice, but it also represented a turning point. The decision focused attention on the [ADJJ] Research Network and a developmental approach to reforming juvenile justice.

The MacArthur Foundation decided to launch Models for Change to facilitate successful reforms based on developmental research and best practices that other states could learn from and emulate. We continued to develop and expand the robust networks among researchers, legal scholars, policy makers, experts, professionals, advocates, youth and their families. Because of these efforts we’ve seen youth prisons closed and fewer kids incarcerated, more youth diverted entirely from the justice system, more youth receiving rehabilitation and treatment in the community, more of them have attorneys providing zealous advocacy, and youth of color suffering less harm.

Professor Laurence Steinberg, PhD: For starters, it’s gratifying to see one’s research cited directly in a Supreme Court opinion. When you are a psychologist who does policy-relevant research, you always hope your work will be helpful and influential. In terms of ongoing research, Roper reaffirmed the importance of doing research that informs important legal and policy questions and that it is possible to do work that is both relevant and scientifically rigorous. I think there are always opportunities to connect developmental research with legal issues. But, I learned from the ADJJ network experience that you start with the legal question and ask how science might be informative, rather than the reverse. I think our current work describing mechanisms through which peers influence adolescent risk-taking is directly relevant to a number of issues in criminal law, including the treatment of adolescents in group situations when a crime is committed.

Professor Elizabeth “Buffie” Scott, Esq: Not surprisingly, it’s also very gratifying for law professors to be cited by the Supreme Court! Perhaps even more gratifying is the Court’s use of our developmental framework in all three opinions as the basis of its proportionality analysis. With each [subsequent sentencing] opinion, the use of developmental science has played a larger role. The Supreme Court’s message that juveniles are less culpable than adults and more likely to reform has been incredibly important – going far beyond the specific issues the Court was addressing, which dealt with the sentencing of juveniles for serious offenses.

The view that juvenile offenders are different from adults and that developmental research should inform justice policy has increasingly been accepted as a basis of policy creation at all levels. Many other things have influenced this trend, but to have the nation’s highest Court repeatedly endorse the developmental model has been huge.

Much of my scholarship since Roper has applied developmental research to issues in juvenile crime regulation. Larry and I are currently involved in a neuroscience study (also sponsored by a MacArthur network) that looks at decision-making factors that may influence adolescents’ criminal involvement.