By: Dr. Saby Ghoshray
The beginning of the 21st Century has been marked by two major
United States Supreme Court opinions. In Atkins v.
Virginia, the Court struck down the execution of the mentally
retarded as constitutionally impermissible. In Roper v.
Simmons, the Court prohibited the execution of
juveniles. These rulings coincided with the canonical
philosophy of Pope John Paul II and his belief that respect for
human dignity and capital punishment are diametrically opposed.
In the piece, Tracing the Moral Contours of the Evolving
Standard of Decency: The Supreme Court’s Capital Punishment
Jurisprudence Post-Roper, Dr. Saby Ghoshray examines how
concepts of morality and the Court’s jurisprudence inform “the
concept of ultimate justice.” Part I of the article examines
the impact of Roper and Atkins by tracing the
trajectory of the Court from Furman and examining what it
means for the judiciary. Part II delves into the evolutionary
process of the Supreme Court’s capital jurisprudence to understand
whether a moral case exists for an abolitionist future, while
extracting the pitfalls and road bumps the Court faced over the
years. Part III investigates whether the similarity between
the Court’s positions in Roper and Atkins and
Pope John Paul II’s principled opposition to capital punishment
signals a normative alignment between the two entities or a mere
coincidence. In Part IV explores the long-term implications
of Atkins and Roper, while tracing the trajectory
for an abolitionist future. By analyzing the full scope of
the moral persuasion presented with the Supreme Court’s legal
discourse in Part V, the author identifies the challenges the Court
faces as it continues to provide moral leadership in establishing
the death penalty’s doctrinal differences and uniqueness.
Finally, the author concludes by summarizing his personal
convictions and a reflective dimension of these inquires.