ABSTRACT
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
May 15, 1987
SHEARMAN It STERUNG 53 Wall Street New York, New York 10005 (212) 837-6000
Page
B. Petitioner Was a Subject of the Study and Exhibited the Same Serious Disabilities . . 15
iii
III. THE EXECUTION OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS AN ADOLESCENT AT THE TIME OF THE CAPITAL OFFENSE IS EXCESSIVE IN VIOLATION OF THE
Page
EIGHTH AMENDMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A. Capital Punishment Is Excessive As Applied to Adolescents Because It Is Disproportionate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B. Capital Punishment is Excessive As Applied to Adolescents Because It Serves No Legitimate Penological Purpose . . . .. ... . 20
1. The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Youths From Committing Capital Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2. Retribution Is Not a Legitimate Penological Purpose With Respect to Adolescents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
a. Adolescents Are Less Responsible Than Adults For Their Offensive Acts.. .... ..... .. ... . ... ...... 23
b. Vengeance Is Antithetical to the Lawful Treatment of Adolescents . 25
c. Retribution Is Contrary to Rehabilitation, the Principal Legitimate Goal of Punishing Adolescents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
C. The Execution of Adolescents Is Unconstihitionaf in Light of Contemporary Human Knowledge About Adolescents Generally and Adolescents Who Commit Capital Offenses in Particular. . . . . . . . . . . 28
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page
California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992 (1983) ". . . .. 17
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) .. .. ... . . 17, 19
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) .... . 3, 4, 17
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. !J1 (1976) .... . .. . . . 18
Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596 (1948) . . . ...... ... 29
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) .... .. . . . . 29
New Jersey v T.L.D., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) . .. . . .
