2003: Scott Hain, the last juvenile offender executed in the United States

On this date in 2003, the state of Oklahoma executed Scott Hain for a Tulsa carjacking that netted $565 and two dead bodies.

The Hain that was strapped down on the gurney that evening was a 32-year-old with a nebbishy middle manager look, high forehead pursuing his hairline to the scalp’s horizon where it had drawn up a wilting rearguard picket fringing an egg-bald pate.

But back in 1987 when he stuffed Laura Lee Sanders and Michael Houghton into the boot of their own car and set it ablaze, Scott Hain was 17 years, 4 months, and 4 days of age.

American jurisprudence through the ages has regularly compassed the execution of minors, sometimes astonishingly young ones. But come the late 20th century the still-ongoing execution of a few men (they were all men) for crimes they had committed when still only boys was a deeply contentious subplot of the death penalty drama.

Because of the protracted judicial processes, there was no longer any question at this point of boosting wispy teenagers into electric chairs as South Carolina had done in 1944. The Scott Hains of the world were grown men by the time they died: grown up on death row.

They were, to be sure, nearly men when they killed as well.

The prevailing jurisprudence at this point was the 1989 Supreme Court decision Stanford v. Kentucky, which set the minimum age for death penalty eligibility at 16.*

And so 17- and even sometimes 16-year-old offenders not considered equal to adult responsibility** in most other spheres of life continued to face the executioner through the 1990s and into the 21st century, a period when the death penalty itself picked up steam.

This became an increasingly awkward situation. For one thing, it placed the United States internationally among a very small handful of countries with unsavory human rights records. Maybe it was a matter of the raw numbers; on the day Stanford came down, the United States had executed only 114 people in its “modern” era, and just three of them were juvenile offenders. For the 1990s, there would be an average of 48 executions every single year, and (again on average) one of those would be a juvenile offender.

But even as the numbers grew, only 20 of the 38 death penalty states permitted such executions, and only three states — Virginia, Texas, and Hain’s Oklahoma — actually conducted any such executions at all after 1993.

Foes argued over those years that the diminishing scope of the juvenile death penalty reflected an emerging national consensus against it — which could in turn be held to create a constitutional prohibition under the 8th Amendment’s proscription of “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Most of the death-sentenced juveniles made similar arguments in the course of their appeals, hoping to be the case that would catch the conscience of the court. Hain’s appellate team made this argument, too. It didn’t take, like it didn’t for any of the others who tried it.

Except, it was taking. Those evolving standards of decency were about to evolve right past a tipping point: in 2004, the justices accepted a new case from Missouri that placed the juvenile death penalty question before it once more.

The nine-member high court’s inconstant swing vote Anthony Kennedy — who had once upon a time (call it a youthful indiscretion) voted with the majority in Stanford to permit juvenile executions — wrote the resulting 2005 decision Roper v. Simmons, barring the execution of juvenile offenders in the United States.†

Scott Hain remains the last person executed in the United States for a crime committed in his childhood.

* The bright-line court ruling was necessary because states had indeed death-sentenced even younger teenagers. For example, Paula Cooper was condemned to death by an Indiana jury for a murder committed at age 15; her sentence was commuted to a prison term, and she was eventually released in 2013. The victim’s grandson, Bill Pelke, notably supported Cooper and has become a leading anti-death penalty activist in the intervening years.

** The notion of age 18 as the age of majority predominates worldwide, but is of course as arbitrary as any other, and has not been the threshold selected in all times and places. The Austrian empire declined to execute Gavrilo Princip for assassinating Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 and precipitating World War I because it could not establish that he had reached the age of 20 when he did so.

† Among the notable cases affected was that of Lee Boyd Malvo, the underaged collaborator of Beltway sniper John Muhammad. Malvo was being considered for capital charges in Virginia at the time Roper came down.

On this day..

10 thoughts on “2003: Scott Hain, the last juvenile offender executed in the United States

  1. I’m against the death penalty for juveniles but they couldn’t have executed a more deserving kid.

  2. This entry doesn’t mention that Hain had a partner-in-crime, Robert Wayne Lambert, who was also sentenced to death. He was 21, so his age was not an issue. But his sentence was commuted to life in prison in 2004, because he was mentally retarded.

  3. Lord, spare me ALL “well *I* blah-blah-blah . . . therefore—hang ’em high!” analogies.

  4. What ticks ME off is that it seems they keep raising the age at which you can drive, have sex, etc., and keep talking about “children” except when those “children” commit crimes. Then suddenly they’re adults. Trying eleven-year-olds as adults, a decade before they’re even allowed to drink. And at the same time, I read of a case where they tried to prosecute a mother for “child endangerment” because she let her thirteen-year-old son walk a mile home from school alone.

    I’m not even necessarily talking about just juvenile murderers being tried as adults either. I read of a case where a fourteen-year-old who stole a classmate’s lunch money was convicted in adult court of “strong arm robbery” and sentenced to a term of several years in prison.

    Obviously people who commit crimes should be punished, and that includes juveniles, but the hypocrisy is astounding to me.

  5. What he did was appalling. He lived many years longer than his victims and died a much kinder death, unlike them. I do not feel sorry for him at all.

  6. Kevin Stanford was not a child when he committed rape and murder. I know, as i have the case file and wrote an article about it. I know what Justice Anthony Kennedy knew and I’m certain that’s why he voted with the majority.

    This idea that a 17 year old doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong is absurd. It’s idiotic. killing a 17 year old for a heinous murder is no different than killing an 18 or 20 year old for the same murder.

    I’m not talking a bar fight where someone is killed. I’m talking about premeditated murder. I’m talking about cold blooded murder. I’m talking about rape, psychological torture, and cold blooded murder.

    At the age of 17 you know what you’re doing. I remember being 17 ans I assure you I understood what it meant to murder and I recognized evil for what it was. My thinking as a 17 year old has not changed at all when it comes to these issues. What I believed then I believe now.

    Kevin Stanford lost in every appeal his attorneys filed. All courts, including the US Supreme Court upheld his conviction. It took our adulterous and hypocritical governor (at the time) to grant him clemency and change his sentence to life. The gov said he was “writing a wrong” but he did no such thing. Kevin Stanford needs to be dead. Justice cries out for his death but the gov wielded a power that I don’t believe governors should have. That too is absurd.

Comments are closed.