The Scientific Shortcomings of Roper v. Simmons

Abstract

This Article contends that some of the case law and social science research that form the basis for the United States Supreme Court\u27s decision in Roper v. Simmons are insufficient and outdated. The Court also relies heavily upon briefs submitted by the respondent and his amici, in lieu of providing more pertinent citations and analysis that could have enhanced and modernized the Court\u27s arguments. The sparse and sometimes archaic sources for Roper potentially limit the opinion\u27s precedential value. For example, the Court cites Erik Erikson\u27s 1968 book, Identity: Youth and Crisis, to support the view that, relative to adults, juveniles have more undeveloped and unstable identities. While Erikson\u27s influence as a psychologist is indisputable, his work reflects an outmoded psychoanalytic perspective. Furthermore, the Court does not specify which of Erikson\u27s highly complex theories are relevant to Roper\u27s conclusions. The shortcomings of Erikson\u27s book and other sources cited in the opinion would be less apparent but for the Court\u27s overall dearth of social science support. This Article concludes that despite Roper\u27s correct result, the Court\u27s application of interdisciplinary studies was, in part, flawed, thereby detracting from the Court\u27s otherwise progressive direction. Ultimately, the opinion\u27s strength derives more from its traditional legal analysis than from its application of relevant social science, an outcome the Court may not have fully intended