How to Write Every Section
Five specific tasks: describe the case, situate it historically, trace its legal evolution to today, analyze its impact on juvenile justice, and take a defensible personal position. This guide walks through what to include in each section — and what to skip — so your analysis reads like scholarship, not a Wikipedia summary.
The assignment has five moving parts — not one. Students who treat it as a simple case summary lose points on every section after the first. The professor wants a layered analysis: what the case decided, why it came up when it did, how the law changed afterward, what it meant for juvenile offenders, and where you personally stand on the ruling. Each of those requires a different type of thinking. This guide breaks down how to approach each one without letting the paper collapse into a timeline of events with no analysis attached.
What This Guide Covers
Assignment Requirements at a Glance
Before anything else: read the full prompt carefully. The case is fixed — Stanford v. Kentucky. You need to cover a specific sequence of elements, hit 3 pages minimum in APA format, use Times New Roman 12pt double-spaced, and cite at least two open-access references with in-text citations. “Open access” matters — the sources need to be freely available online, not paywalled journal articles.
Paper Requirements Checklist
Section 1: How to Write the Case Description
The assignment asks for “a brief description.” That’s a deliberate constraint. The description section should give your reader the who, what, and what-was-decided — enough context to understand everything that follows, but not so much that you’re summarizing a court opinion for three paragraphs.
Four Elements, One Tight Paragraph (or Two Short Ones)
Every case description needs: the parties and basic facts (who was involved, what crime, what sentence), the specific legal question before the Court (does the Eighth Amendment prohibit executing a person for a crime committed at age 16 or 17?), the holding (the 5–4 majority said no — it does not violate the Eighth Amendment), and the key legal framework the Court applied (the “evolving standards of decency” test drawn from Trop v. Dulles). That’s it. Don’t recap the dissent in detail here — save that for the legal evolution section where the dissenting logic becomes relevant to Roper.
Note the case name correctly: The case is Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989). It was argued in 1988 but decided in 1989. Some sources reference it as a 1988 case because of when it was argued — your citation should reflect the 1989 decision date. The full citation is needed on the references page; in-text, use (Stanford v. Kentucky, 1989).Oyez.org provides a free, accurate, and citable summary of Stanford v. Kentucky including oral argument audio, the full opinion, and a plain-language case summary. It’s open access and appropriate to cite as one of your two required sources. For the full text of the opinion, the Supreme Court’s own site (Justia.com) is another free primary source. Both are open access — no paywall.
Section 2: Historical Context — Why the Court Heard This Case When It Did
This is the section most students under-develop. “The 1980s were tough on crime” is not historical context. Historical context means identifying the specific social, political, and legal conditions that created the pressure for this question to reach the Supreme Court when it did.
Three Converging Forces
First, the legal foundation: one year before Stanford, the Court had decided Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), banning execution for crimes committed under age 16. That ruling left the 16–17 age range as an open constitutional question. Stanford arrived to answer it. Second, the social environment: juvenile violent crime rates had been rising through the early-to-mid 1980s, intensifying public and political pressure for tougher juvenile sentencing. Many states were lowering the age for adult criminal prosecution, and the “superpredator” narrative — though not yet fully formed — was beginning to shape policy thinking. Third, the legislative landscape: at the time of Stanford, 37 states permitted capital punishment, and a significant number allowed it for offenders who had committed their crimes as juveniles. The Court was reading that state legislative consensus as evidence of societal standards — which is exactly what the majority opinion did.
For your paper: Don’t just name these forces — connect them. The Court didn’t hear Stanford in a vacuum. The majority’s reasoning was explicitly tied to its reading of state legislative consensus as reflecting “evolving standards of decency.” Understanding that logic requires understanding the political moment in which 37 states had the death penalty on their books.Legal Precursors to Stanford
- Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988) — Banned execution for crimes committed under 16; set the lower age floor that made Stanford’s 16–17 question necessary
- Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982) — Required courts to consider youth as a mitigating factor in capital sentencing
- Enmund v. Florida (1982) — Reinforced proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment
- The “evolving standards of decency” framework — Established in Trop v. Dulles (1958); the test both sides in Stanford applied differently
Social and Political Context (1980s)
- Rising juvenile violent crime rates, particularly homicide, through the mid-1980s
- Public and political pressure for harsher juvenile sentencing nationally
- Legislative trend in many states toward lowering the age of adult criminal prosecution
- Reagan-era “tough on crime” policy environment; Omnibus Crime Control legislation
- 37 states with capital punishment statutes — the majority used this as evidence of societal consensus
- No broad scientific consensus yet on adolescent brain development as a mitigating factor
John DiIulio’s “superpredator” theory emerged in 1995 — after Stanford was decided. It became enormously influential in juvenile justice policy through the mid-to-late 1990s and is relevant to the post-Stanford evolution section. But don’t backdate it to the 1989 historical context — the term didn’t exist yet. What you can say is that the ideological conditions that would later produce the superpredator narrative were already present in 1989: fear of youth violence, skepticism about juvenile rehabilitation, and bipartisan support for punitive sentencing.
Section 3: Legal Evolution from 1989 to Present
This is the meatiest section of the paper — and the one where your analysis has the most room to show depth. The legal landscape shifted dramatically between 1989 and today. Stanford wasn’t just revisited — it was flatly overruled.
Stanford v. Kentucky Decided
5–4 majority holds that executing individuals for crimes committed at 16 or 17 does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Justice Scalia writes the majority. Justice Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, dissents sharply — arguing the evolving standards analysis was misapplied.
State-Level Shifts and Growing Pressure
Several states that had permitted juvenile execution move to restrict or eliminate it. Scientific research on adolescent brain development begins accumulating. International criticism of the US for permitting juvenile execution intensifies. The American Bar Association calls for a moratorium.
Atkins v. Virginia — The Intellectual Disability Precedent
Court bans execution of intellectually disabled individuals, citing evolving standards of decency and diminished culpability. This ruling directly set up the framework that would be applied to juveniles in Roper three years later — the logic transferred almost directly.
Roper v. Simmons — Stanford Is Overruled
5–4 ruling by Justice Kennedy’s majority explicitly overrules Stanford. The Court holds that executing anyone for a crime committed before age 18 constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Three reasons: diminished culpability of juveniles (immaturity, vulnerability, character still forming), national consensus against juvenile execution (30 states by 2005 had prohibited it), and international consensus (the US was nearly alone globally in permitting it). 72 individuals on death row had their sentences commuted.
Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama
Graham (2010) bans life without parole for juveniles in non-homicide cases. Miller (2012) holds that mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment. Both decisions extend the Roper reasoning — juveniles are categorically different from adults for sentencing purposes.
Montgomery v. Louisiana and Ongoing Litigation
Montgomery (2016) makes Miller retroactive — meaning individuals sentenced to mandatory JLWOP before Miller were entitled to resentencing hearings. The juvenile sentencing reform movement continues in state courts and legislatures, driven in large part by the constitutional framework Roper established.
It’s Not Just a Timeline — It’s an Argument About How Law Changes
The evolution from Stanford to Roper to Miller tells a coherent story about how constitutional standards shift. The key analytical point is that Stanford‘s majority applied the “evolving standards” test and concluded standards had not evolved enough by 1989 to ban juvenile execution. Roper‘s majority applied the same test 16 years later and reached the opposite conclusion. The difference wasn’t the test — it was the evidence the Court accepted as relevant: state legislative trends, scientific research on adolescent brain development, and international consensus. Your paper should explain that distinction, not just list the cases.
Neuroscience mattered: By 2005, research on adolescent brain development — particularly the immaturity of the prefrontal cortex, which governs impulse control and long-term decision-making — had become sufficiently documented that the Roper majority cited it directly. The APA filed an amicus brief in Roper summarizing this research. This is a detail that strengthens the evolution section considerably and supports the juvenile justice impact section that follows.Section 4: Impact on Juvenile Treatment and Management in the Justice System
The assignment asks about impact in both the criminal and juvenile justice systems. That’s a meaningful distinction — juveniles can move between both, and Stanford (and its aftermath) affected how each system processes and sentences youth.
Impact During the Stanford Era (1989–2005)
- Capital charges against 16–17 year old defendants remained constitutional; prosecutors could pursue death in applicable states
- Legislative trend toward adult prosecution of juveniles continued — many states lowered transfer age thresholds in the 1990s
- The “superpredator” narrative (mid-1990s) intensified policy toward punitive rather than rehabilitative approaches to juvenile offenders
- Defense attorneys had limited constitutional footing to argue age as a categorical bar to execution — Stanford required case-by-case mitigation arguments instead
- State-level variation was significant — some states voluntarily restricted juvenile death penalty despite Stanford permitting it
Impact After Roper and the Post-2005 Reforms
- 72 juveniles on death row had sentences commuted immediately after Roper
- Roper‘s diminished culpability framework became the basis for Graham and Miller — extending categorical protections to JLWOP sentencing
- Growing judicial and legislative acceptance of adolescent brain research as legally relevant to sentencing decisions
- Increased use of individualized sentencing hearings for juvenile offenders in serious felony cases
- Rehabilitation-focused sentencing for juveniles gained renewed momentum at state level
- Montgomery (2016) created retroactive resentencing obligations — states had to revisit hundreds of old JLWOP sentences
How Stanford and Its Reversal Shaped Policy, Not Just Law
The legal evolution from Stanford to Roper didn’t happen in isolation from juvenile justice policy. It reflected — and then reinforced — a broader shift in thinking about juvenile culpability. The 1990s were the high-water mark for punitive juvenile justice: lower transfer ages, mandatory minimums for juvenile serious offenders, blended sentencing schemes. The Court’s intervention in Roper, and then Graham and
Section 5: Writing Your Personal Position
This section scares students more than it should. You’re not being asked to litigate the case from scratch. You’re being asked to take a position — agree or disagree with the original Stanford ruling — and defend it with reasoning. The key word in the prompt is “discuss.” That means argue, not just state.
Two Options — Pick One and Commit to It
The assignment gives you a binary: if you agree with the Stanford ruling (that the death penalty for 16–17 year old offenders was constitutional), argue why there was a need to change that law — meaning you’re essentially agreeing with the outcome of Roper while acknowledging Stanford was the law at the time. If you disagree with the Stanford ruling, explain the negative implications it had on juvenile offenders during the 16 years it remained law. Either position is academically defensible. What isn’t defensible is hedging — “on one hand, on the other hand” without landing anywhere.
Structure for the position section: State your position clearly in the first sentence. Then give two or three specific reasons grounded in the case, the research, or juvenile justice principles. Connect at least one of those reasons to one of your cited sources. End with a sentence about what the ruling’s evolution suggests about how law and social science interact — that’s where the analytical payoff lives.Argue the Need for Change
You can hold that Stanford was constitutionally defensible given the 1989 evidence while arguing that Roper correctly recognized that standards had evolved by 2005. Your argument: the law needed to catch up with what neuroscience and legislative consensus had revealed about juvenile culpability.
Argue the Negative Implications
Argue that Stanford permitted a fundamentally disproportionate punishment for a class of offenders — adolescents — whose culpability was constitutionally distinct even in 1989. The science existed; the Court chose not to weight it. 72 people spent years on death row under a ruling the Court later determined was unconstitutional.
What Makes a Well-Argued Position
Specific case citations, reference to brain development research, engagement with the dissent (either Brennan’s in Stanford or Scalia’s in Roper), and a connection to broader juvenile justice principles. Don’t rely on moral intuition alone — anchor your position in the legal and empirical record.
The prompt says: “If you agree with the ruling discuss why there was a need to change the law.” That phrasing is counterintuitive. It means: if you agree with the original Stanford ruling, explain why it still needed to be changed (as Roper did). It doesn’t mean if you agree that the law needed changing. Read it carefully before you decide which position to take — many students misread this and write a position paper that doesn’t match either framing the assignment offers.
Paper Structure and Page Distribution
Three pages minimum at double spacing, 12pt Times New Roman, one-inch margins gives you roughly 750–900 words of body text. That sounds short. It’s actually tight once you have five sections to cover. Plan the distribution before you write.
Allocate Space Proportional to Analytical Weight
A rough working breakdown: case description (~0.4 page — keep it tight), historical context (~0.6 page — this needs real substance), legal evolution (~1 page — this is the longest section and carries the most analytical weight), juvenile justice impact (~0.5 page — focused, not exhaustive), personal position (~0.4 page — short but committed). That totals just over 3 pages of body text. A brief introductory sentence and a short closing sentence close it out without padding. Title page and references page are separate — they don’t count toward the 3-page minimum.
APA 7 student paper structure: Title page (title, your name, institution, course, instructor, date) → body (no abstract required for student papers unless your professor specifies) → references page. The 3 pages refers to the body only.| Section | Approx. Length | What to Focus On |
|---|---|---|
| Case Description | ~0.4 page | Parties, crime, legal question, holding, vote. One to two paragraphs maximum. |
| Historical Context | ~0.6 page | Thompson v. Oklahoma setup, 1980s crime environment, state legislative consensus the Court relied on |
| Legal Evolution | ~1 page | Atkins (2002) → Roper (2005) → Graham (2010) → Miller (2012) → Montgomery (2016). Emphasize why the Court changed its analysis, not just that it did. |
| Juvenile Justice Impact | ~0.5 page | Both criminal and juvenile justice systems. Direct effects (72 commuted sentences) and indirect effects (sentencing philosophy, brain research legitimization). |
| Personal Position | ~0.4 page | Clear stance, two or three reasons, at least one source citation. No hedging. |
Open-Access Source Strategy
The assignment specifically requires open-access sources — freely available online, no paywall. That rules out most academic journal databases (JSTOR, Sage, etc.) unless you’re accessing them through your institution. Here’s where to find quality sources that qualify.
1. Oyez.org — Stanford v. Kentucky case page includes the full case summary, oral argument audio, and opinion text. Free, citable, accurate. Also search Oyez for Roper v. Simmons. Cite as: Oyez. (n.d.). Stanford v. Kentucky. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-5765
2. Justia.com — Full text of Supreme Court opinions, free. Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989) and Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). These are primary source legal documents — citing them directly is appropriate and strong.
3. Equal Justice Initiative (eji.org) — Publishes open-access reports on juvenile justice and capital punishment. The EJI’s Cruel and Unusual report is freely available and peer-substantiated. eji.org
4. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (ojjdp.gov) — Federal government source, always open access. Publishes data on juvenile offending trends, juvenile justice processing, and policy analyses. Appropriate for the juvenile justice impact section.
Mistakes That Cost Marks
Treating the Paper as a Case Summary
Spending two of three pages describing Stanford’s facts and the Court’s reasoning, then cramming historical context, evolution, impact, and position into the last half page. The assignment is an analysis with five distinct components — the description is the shortest one.
Allocate Space to Analysis
The description is a setup. Everything after it — context, evolution, impact, position — is where the actual analytical work happens. Plan your page distribution before you write. The legal evolution and juvenile impact sections carry the most academic weight.
Ignoring Roper v. Simmons
Writing the legal evolution section without centering Roper as the definitive development. Roper didn’t modify Stanford — it overruled it. That distinction matters and needs to be stated explicitly in the paper.
Make Roper the Pivot Point
Structure the evolution section around Roper as the central event. What came before it (Atkins, state legislative trends) set it up. What came after it (Graham, Miller, Montgomery) flowed from it. Roper is the hinge — treat it that way.
Misreading the Personal Position Prompt
“If you agree with the ruling, discuss why there was a need to change the law” trips many students. They think agreeing with Stanford means arguing against change. It means the opposite — even if you agree Stanford was constitutional in 1989, you’re then arguing that change (Roper) was still necessary.
Pick a Position and Argue It
Read the prompt’s two framing options carefully before you decide. Either position is defensible — what matters is clarity and reasoning. State your position in the first sentence of the section. Don’t hedge or present “both sides” without landing anywhere.
No In-Text Citations
The assignment requires in-text citations — not just a references page. A references list at the end with no citations in the body doesn’t satisfy the requirement. Every factual claim and every quoted or paraphrased source needs an in-text citation at the point of use.
Cite at the Claim, Not at the End
When you state the vote count (5–4), cite Oyez or the case directly. When you describe Roper’s holding, cite it. When you reference brain development research, cite a source. APA in-text format: (Author, Year) or (Case Name, Year). Both sources must appear in both the body and the references page.
Frequently Asked Questions
Need Help With Your Supreme Court Case Analysis or Any Criminal Justice Paper?
From landmark case analyses to juvenile justice research papers — our criminology and criminal justice writers cover undergraduate and graduate-level work in APA format.
Criminology Assignment Help Get StartedThe Case That Changed — And the Paper That Needs to Reflect That
Stanford v. Kentucky is unusual as a landmark case study subject because the landmark isn’t the original ruling — it’s the fact that the ruling was overturned. The Court applied the same constitutional test in 1989 and 2005 and reached opposite conclusions. That’s not a legal contradiction; it’s the Eighth Amendment working exactly as designed, responding to changing social and scientific evidence.
Your paper’s analytical value comes from explaining that arc — not just cataloguing it. Why did the Court change? What evidence made the difference? What does it mean for juvenile justice that the law moved the way it did? Those are the questions that turn a timeline into an analysis.
And don’t shortchange the personal position section. It’s the shortest part of the paper but it’s the part that requires you to commit to a view and defend it. A hedged position reads as an absence of thinking. Pick a lane and argue it well — that’s what the assignment is asking for.