IV Our determination that the death penalty is dispropor- tionate punishment for offenders under 18 finds confirma- tion in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanc- tion to the juvenile death penalty. This reality does not become controlling, for the task of interpreting the Eighth Amendment remains our responsibility. Yet at least from the time of the Court™s decision in Trop, the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment™s prohibition of ifcruel and unusual punishments.ln 356 U. S., at 102Œ103 (plurality opinion) (iiThe civilized nations of the world are in virtual unanim- ity that statelessness is not to be imposed as punishment for crimelm); see also Atkins, supra, at 317, n. 21 (recogniz- ing that ihwithin the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally re- tarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapprovedll); Thomp-son, supra, at 830Œ831, and n. 31 (plurality opinion) (not- ing the abolition of the juvenile death penalty ieby other nations that share our Anglo-American heritage, and by the leading members of the Western European commu- nity,la and observing that ih[w]e have previously recognized the relevance of the views of the international community in determining whether a punishment is cruel and un- usuall.); Enmund, supra, at 796Œ797, n. 22 (observing that ihthe doctrine of felony murder has been abolished in Eng- land and India, severely restricted in Canada and a num- ber of other Commonwealth countries, and is unknown in continental Europeln); Coker, supra, at 596, n. 10 (plurality opinion) (iiIt is . . . not irrelevant here that out of 60 major nations in the world surveyed in 1965, only 3 retained the death penalty for rape where death did not ensue).As respondent and a number of amici emphasize, Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which every country in the world has ratified save for the United States and Somalia, contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 37, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U. N. T. S. 3, 28 I. L. M. 1448, 1468Œ1470 (entered into force Sept. 2, 1990); Brief for Respondent 48; Brief for European Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12Œ13; Brief for President James Earl Carter, Jr., et al. as Amici Curiae 9; Brief for Former U. S. Diplomats Morton Abramowitz et al. as Amici Curiae 7; Brief for Human Rights Commit- tee of the Bar of England and Wales et al. as Amici Curiae 13Œ14. No ratifying country has entered a reservation to the provision prohibiting the execution of juvenile offend- ers. Parallel prohibitions are contained in other signifi- cant international covenants. See ICCPR, Art. 6(5), 999 U. N. T. S., at 175 (prohibiting capital punishment for anyone under 18 at the time of offense) (signed and rati- fied by the United States subject to a reservation regard- ing Article 6(5), as noted, supra, at 13); American Conven- tion on Human Rights: Pact of San José, Costa Rica, Art. 4(5), Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 U. N. T. S. 146 (entered into force July 19, 1978) (same); African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Art. 5(3), OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/ 24.9/49 (1990) (entered into force Nov. 29, 1999) (same).
Respondent and his amici have submitted, and peti- tioner does not contest, that only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital pun- ishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice. Brief for Respondent 49Œ50. In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.
Though the international covenants prohibiting the juvenile death penalty are of more recent date, it is in- structive to note that the United Kingdom abolished the juvenile death penalty before these covenants came into being. The United Kingdom™s experience bears particular relevance here in light of the historic ties between our countries and in light of the Eighth Amendment™s own origins. The Amendment was modeled on a parallel provi- sion in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, which provided: ir[E]xcessive Bail ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed; nor cruel and unusuall Punish- ments inflicted.lv 1 W. & M., ch. 2, §10, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1770); see also Trop, supra, at 100 (plurality opinion). As of now, the United Kingdom has abolished the death penalty in its entirety; but, decades before it took this step, it recognized the disproportionate nature of the juvenile death penalty; and it abolished that penalty as a separate matter. In 1930 an official committee rec- ommended that the minimum age for execution be raised to 21. House of Commons Report from the Select Committee on Capital Punishment (1930), 193, p. 44. Parliament then enacted the Children and Young Person™s Act of 1933, 23 Geo. 5, ch. 12, which prevented execution of those aged 18 at the date of the sentence. And in 1948, Parliament enacted the Criminal Justice Act, 11 & 12 Geo. 6, ch. 58, prohibiting the execution of any person under 18 at the time of the offense. In the 56 years that have passed since the United Kingdom abolished the juvenile death penalty, the weight of authority against it there, and in the inter- national community, has become well established.
It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime. See Brief for Human Rights Committee of the Bar of England and Wales et al. as Amici Curiae 10Œ11. The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does pro- vide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.
Over time, from one generation to the next, the Consti- tution has come to earn the high respect and even, as Madison dared to hope, the veneration of the American people. See The Federalist No. 49, p. 314 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). The document sets forth, and rests upon, innova- tive principles original to the American experience, such as federalism; a proven balance in political mechanisms through separation of powers; specific guarantees for the accused in criminal cases; and broad provisions to secure individual freedom and preserve human dignity. These doctrines and guarantees are central to the American experience and remain essential to our present-day self- definition and national identity. Not the least of the reasons we honor the Constitution, then, is because we know it to be our own. It does not lessen our fidelity to the Constitution or our pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples simply underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.
* * * The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposi- tion of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. The judg- ment of the Missouri Supreme Court setting aside the sentence of death imposed upon Christopher Simmons is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
That is treasonous.