Thompson v. Oklahoma

Supreme Court of United States
487 U.S. 815 (1988)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The execution of an individual who was under the age of 16 at the time of their offense is prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Facts:

In January 1983, William Wayne Thompson, who was 15 years old, actively participated with three older individuals in the murder of his former brother-in-law, Charles Keene.
The murder was reportedly motivated in part by Keene's physical abuse of Thompson's sister.
Keene was shot twice, and his throat, chest, and abdomen were cut; he also had multiple bruises and a broken leg.
Thompson and his accomplices chained Keene's body to a concrete block and threw it into a river.
Keene's body was discovered nearly four weeks later.
Thompson made several admissions to others about his role in the killing, stating he had shot and cut the victim.

Procedural Posture:

The State of Oklahoma filed a petition seeking to have William Wayne Thompson, a minor, tried as an adult.
The Oklahoma trial court, after a hearing, certified Thompson to stand trial as an adult.
A jury in the District Court of Grady County found Thompson guilty of first-degree murder.
Following a sentencing hearing, the same jury recommended a sentence of death.
The trial court judge sentenced Thompson to death.
Thompson, the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the appellee being the State of Oklahoma, affirmed the conviction and sentence.
The United States Supreme Court granted Thompson's petition for a writ of certiorari.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the imposition of the death penalty on an individual who was 15 years old at the time of the offense constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Opinions:

Plurality - Justice Stevens

Yes, the imposition of the death penalty on a 15-year-old offender is cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition must be interpreted according to the 'evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.' Objective evidence reveals a national consensus against this practice, as every state legislature that has set a minimum age for capital punishment has chosen 16 or older, and juries have demonstrated a clear reluctance to impose the death penalty on offenders under 16. Furthermore, juveniles lack the level of culpability of adults due to their immaturity, inexperience, and vulnerability to influence, meaning the penological goals of retribution and deterrence are not served by their execution.

Concurring - Justice O'Connor

Yes, the petitioner's death sentence should be vacated. Although evidence of a national consensus forbidding the execution of any person for a crime committed before the age of 16 is strong, it is not conclusive enough to create a categorical constitutional rule. However, due to the unique nature of the death penalty, legislatures must demonstrate special care and deliberation. Thompson may not be executed under the authority of a capital punishment statute that specifies no minimum age, as there is a considerable risk the Oklahoma Legislature did not give the question of executing 15-year-olds the serious consideration required by the Eighth Amendment.

Dissenting - Justice Scalia

No, the imposition of the death penalty on a 15-year-old offender is not cruel and unusual punishment. Historically, the common law permitted capital punishment for offenders of this age, and there is no 'evolving standards of decency' to the contrary. Objective legislative evidence is misinterpreted by the plurality; a majority of states that permit capital punishment have not set a minimum age, and the trend has been to lower, not raise, the age of adult criminal responsibility. The rarity of such executions does not establish a constitutional prohibition but merely reflects that juries find it appropriate only in rare cases, which is the proper function of individualized sentencing.

Analysis:

This case established a constitutional prohibition against executing offenders who were 15 or younger at the time of their crime. The fractured decision, with a four-justice plurality and a narrow concurrence from Justice O'Connor, created a complex precedent. The holding technically rested on O'Connor's narrower ground: that a state cannot execute a 15-year-old under a death penalty statute that does not specify a minimum age. This decision was a significant step in the Court's juvenile death penalty jurisprudence, setting the stage for later cases like Roper v. Simmons, which would eventually ban the death penalty for all offenders under 18.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature