Roper Court Case Study

when applied to juveniles. Underlying all three opinions is the contention that well-documented developmental differences between juveniles and adults renders juvenile offenders less culpable than adult offenders, and that diminished culpability justifies differential treatment at sentencing. Roper is heralded by legal and child development scholars as an important step forward in the interdisciplinary integration of child development and the law. Earlier criminal cases relied on similar language, regarding juveniles’ diminished capacity for individual choice and autonomous decision-making, but those cases, like the reproductive rights cases discussed above, tended to rely on conventional wisdom and legal tradition. In Roper, the Court not only appeals to social scientific literature in support of its conclusions about adolescent decision-making, but also provides a more nuanced account of the decision-making competencies at play, and how they relate to juvenile offender culpability. The Roper Court identified three general differences between juveniles and adults that justify the conclusion that juveniles are less culpable for their criminal behavior, and therefore undeserving of the harsh penalties we reserve for adults. First,

But to what extent does accepting Roper, Graham, and Miller compel the acceptance of Danforth, Bellotti, and the parental notification and consent laws that were passed in their wake? To insist that juveniles be granted the same reproductive rights as adults is to take the position, at least implicitly, that adolescents have about the same capacity as adults to exercise those rights. But to insist upon differential treatment at sentencing for juvenile offenders is to take the position that juvenile offenders lack the same capacities as adults—capacities that would render them equally culpable for their conduct. Put another