Roach and Pinkerton v. United States
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Case No. 9647, Inter-Am. Comm'n H.R. Res. No 3/87 (September 22, 1987)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
James Roach and Jay Pinkerton (plaintiffs) each committed capital offenses at the age of 17 and were sentenced to death in South Carolina and Texas, respectively. In the United States (defendant), there was no federal prohibition against the imposition of the death penalty on children under the age of 18. The United States forbade juvenile courts from imposing the death penalty; however, because juveniles could be tried as adults in adult criminal courts, that prohibition did not prevent the imposition of the death penalty on juveniles. Because there was no federal policy, each American state had its own rules regarding (1) the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult criminal courts; and (2) the minimum age for the imposition of the death penalty. In the United States, 13 states and the District of Columbia abolished the death penalty entirely, nine states abolished the death penalty for children under 18, and the remainder allowed children over a certain age threshold, which could be as young as 10, to be subjected to the death penalty. After exhausting all domestic appeals, Roach and Pinkerton petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), arguing that imposing the death penalty on individuals under the age of 18 violated (a) the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (American Declaration); and (b) customary international law. Both Roach and Pinkerton were executed while their petitions were pending before the IACHR.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.