One of the many amazing things about the function of The Supreme Court is that it can revisit already determined decisions made previously, and they can hear a different case on the same issue. Stanford v Kentucky and Roper v Simmons are examples of this phenomenon. Both cases deal with the issue of applying the death penalty for juveniles over the age of sixteen who were waived into the adult court. Both of these cases question the constitutionality of this practice, but they were heard by The High Court and ruled upon decades apart.
Provide a case brief on both Stanford v Kentucky and Roper v Simmons. A legal brief requires the following: the case title, statement of the issue of the case, the details of the case background, and the way in which the court ruled, with an explanation supporting that ruling.
At the conclusion of these legal briefs, take a stand on which ruling you think was correct. Do you support the original decision in Stanford? Or, do you think the court was correct in striking down Stanford in the Roper ruling?
