There is one area in which the law does not treat all men equally. This is capital punishment. In March 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing juveniles to the death penalty fell under the Constitution’s ban of cruel and unusual punishment (Totenberg). This decision came about in the case Roper vs. Simmons. Christopher Simmons was a seventeen year -old boy from Missouri when he murdered an elderly woman Shirley Crook. Simmons bound Crook with electrical wires, leather straps and duct tape. After a beating that left her bruised and caused a fractured rib, Simmons disposed of Crook in the Meramac River where she drowned. Christopher Simmons was tried as adult and received the death penalty. He appealed it claiming that since he was a juvenile it was considered cruel and unusual punishment. The case was taken to the Supreme Court where Simmons won is appeal and the Supreme Court eventually prohibited any states from placing juveniles on death row. Yet, Napoleon Beazley, who was seventeen when he committed murder during an attempted carjacking, lost his appeal. Beazley committed his crime the same year and was the same age as Simmons, still he lost his appeal and his life while Simmons won his appeal and is still alive. Both had no previous criminal records so why were these two criminals treated differently?

“The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest” (Totenberg). This was stated by Justice Anthony Kennedy when the Supreme Court ruled it illegal to sentence juveniles to capital punishment. Society does believe that a person becomes an adult at the age of eighteen but on a person’s eighteenth birthday they do not suddenly know the difference between right and wrong but rather they learn the difference their entire life. Young children are often taught the difference between right and wrong by being rewarded for what is right and punished for what is wrong. As they continue through life they learn that the severity of the punishment changes with the severity of the crime. A thirteen year old understands, just as well as an eighteen year old, that murder is wrong. By allowing juveniles to escape punishment, the same punishment as an adult, because of their age, we almost encourage juveniles to commit crimes believing that because they are under the legal age of an adult that they will receive a lighter sentence. This may only cause the number of juvenile crimes, homicides or others, to increase as juveniles realize that they will not receive a punishment that justifies their crime. When fourteen year -old Nathaniel Brazill murdered his teacher he was sentenced to 28 years in prison. When he is forty-two, although facing a few challenges, he will be able to live a life again while his teacher cannot. "Mr. Grunow was a great man and a great teacher and I'm sorry I took him away from you," Brazill apologized in court ( Handlin). Why is it fair for this boy who clearly knows that what he did was wrong almost escape with committing murder? He should have been tried as an adult and receive the sentence of capital punishment or life prison