Read the following article in the Library.
(2009). Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Simmons: certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri. Supreme Court Cases: The Twenty-first Century (2000 – Present), 1â5.
After you have read the article, write a 3â5-page summary of the article addressing the questions below:
In Roper v. Simmons, what was basis of the U.S. Supreme Courtsâ opinion?
What was the dissenting opinion?
What policy and treatment implications can you envision as a result of this decision?
Do you believe that juveniles should be put to death? Why, or why not?
Sample Solution
As Bjarne is too young to have the knowledge and understanding to best enforce his rights, Charlotte will be required to do it on his behalf. The best way to enforce his rights are on the grounds of the State breaching his Article 18 rights and Regulation 492/2011 rights . The requirement for Bjarne to have resided in the UK for 5 years constitutes to discrimination. The requirement is unlawful and is set in the Treaty Provision in Article 18 , which includes direct discrimination of nationality is prohibited. This is legally binding which means it constitutes to direct effect. The test which was set out in the case of Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen needs to be satisfied in order for Charlotte to use vertical direct effect. The requirements include: the EU provision needs to be sufficiently clear and precise, which Article 18 TFEU is. The provision must be unconditional, which it is only to EU citizens which Bjarne is, and it must leave no room for the exercise of discretion in its implementation by an institution or national authority which Article 18 doesnât. As the provision passes these requirements, Charlotte will be able to enforce this provision and exercise Bjarneâs rights before the courts. The ESC can be considered and emanation of the state which is established in the Foster test: the body is considered to be providing a public service as it is a public school for special needs children. It is subject to state authority as is subject to the council. It can be considered to have special powers as it set a residency requirement and even turned away Bjarne based on it. Maria is Luisâ daughter from a previous marriage and is 18 years old. She is Columbian and therefore not an EU citizen. She comes in the definition of a worker under the Directive 2004/38 Article 1 (c) âa child under 21 years of age or such child of a spouse of a European Union citizen and;â (d) âa dependent direct relative in the ascending or descending line or any such relative of a spouse of a citizen of the European Union.â Maria specifically falls under the age of 21 of a spouse of an EU citizen and she is dependant on the descending line of her father who is the spouse of an EU citizen. Mariaâs rights are consi>
As Bjarne is too young to have the knowledge and understanding to best enforce his rights, Charlotte will be required to do it on his behalf. The best way to enforce his rights are on the grounds of the State breaching his Article 18 rights and Regulation 492/2011 rights . The requirement for Bjarne to have resided in the UK for 5 years constitutes to discrimination. The requirement is unlawful and is set in the Treaty Provision in Article 18 , which includes direct discrimination of nationality is prohibited. This is legally binding which means it constitutes to direct effect. The test which was set out in the case of Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen needs to be satisfied in order for Charlotte to use vertical direct effect. The requirements include: the EU provision needs to be sufficiently clear and precise, which Article 18 TFEU is. The provision must be unconditional, which it is only to EU citizens which Bjarne is, and it must leave no room for the exercise of discretion in its implementation by an institution or national authority which Article 18 doesnât. As the provision passes these requirements, Charlotte will be able to enforce this provision and exercise Bjarneâs rights before the courts. The ESC can be considered and emanation of the state which is established in the Foster test: the body is considered to be providing a public service as it is a public school for special needs children. It is subject to state authority as is subject to the council. It can be considered to have special powers as it set a residency requirement and even turned away Bjarne based on it. Maria is Luisâ daughter from a previous marriage and is 18 years old. She is Columbian and therefore not an EU citizen. She comes in the definition of a worker under the Directive 2004/38 Article 1 (c) âa child under 21 years of age or such child of a spouse of a European Union citizen and;â (d) âa dependent direct relative in the ascending or descending line or any such relative of a spouse of a citizen of the European Union.â Maria specifically falls under the age of 21 of a spouse of an EU citizen and she is dependant on the descending line of her father who is the spouse of an EU citizen. Mariaâs rights are consi>
Is this question part of your Assignment?
We can help
Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.
We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals
Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples