Too young to kill? U.S. Supreme Court treads a dangerous path in Roper v. Simmons

The death penalty remains an intensely divisive topic in American society. Recently, there has been a series of cases, first involving defendants with mental retardation and more recently involving juveniles, in which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled by a five-to-four margin that the death penalty in both these classes violates the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed in the Eighth Amendment. In this essay, I explore the Supreme Court's recent decision in Roper v. Simmons, a case involving juveniles. Besides a more general discussion of the Supreme Court's decision and the biting dissent led by Justice Scalia, I focus on the reliance on foreign authorities in the Court's decision. I submit that irrespective of the moral arguments against the death penalty, reliance on foreign authorities in interpreting the U.S. Constitution is a dangerous trend, as it has long-term sovereignty implications for the United States.