The term "evolving standards of decency" is coined in describing the Supreme Court's legal foundation

Full Answer Section

• Roper v. Simmons (2005): The death penalty is unconstitutional for anyone under 18 at the time of the crime.
• Graham v. Florida (2010): Life without parole for non-homicide offenses committed by juveniles is unconstitutional.
• Miller v. Alabama (2012): Mandatory life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional.

Arguments Supporting the Court's Position

• Brain development: Juveniles' brains are still developing, and they may be less capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions.
• Rehabilitation potential: Juveniles are more likely to be rehabilitated than adults.
• International standards: The US is one of the few countries that allows the death penalty or life without parole for juveniles.

Arguments Against the Court's Position

• Heinous crimes: Some argue that certain juvenile crimes are so severe they deserve the harshest punishments.
• Victim's rights: Victims' families deserve justice, and life without parole may be the only way to ensure the offender is never released.
• Judicial overreach: Some believe the Court is legislating from the bench, not interpreting the Constitution.

Is "Evolving Standards" the Right Term?

"Evolving standards of decency" is a well-established legal term. Here are some alternatives, depending on your perspective:

• Shifting moral compass: If you emphasize the ethical reasons behind the rulings.
• Scientific advancements: If you focus on the role of brain development research.
• International conformity: If you highlight the pressure to align with global norms.

Ultimately, whether you agree with the Court's position or not, the "evolving standards of decency" concept reflects a changing societal view on punishment for juveniles.

Sample Answer

Whether or not you agree with the Supreme Court's current rulings on juvenile executions and life sentences without parole depends on your own ethical and legal views. Here's a breakdown to help you form your own opinion:

The "Evolving Standards of Decency"

The Court uses the concept of "evolving standards of decency" to interpret the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishments." This means the Court considers how society's views on punishment change over time. In the context of juveniles, the Court has ruled: