Death Penalty for Juvenile Offenders

One of the most controversial issues in contemporary society is the debate on the death penalty for juvenile offenders in the juvenile justice system. Throughout decades, juvenile courts have been protecting many juvenile offenders with the full weight of criminal law as well as protecting their special rights and immunities (Williams 271). As a result, some youths pose a danger to society and fail to respond to the attempts of reforming themselves. Despite the dangers, it is still not okay for juveniles who commit capital offenses to be subjected to the severity of criminal courts and finally receive the death penalty.

Adolescents lack enough maturity to enable them to make appropriate decisions on whether or not to commit a crime. In the Roper Versus Simmons case, Simmons’s lawyers maintained that adolescents are not morally culpable compared to adults and thus should not be subjected to the death penalty (Benekos and Merlo 111). Also, adolescents’ peers and those around them mostly influence their choices. For instance, parents may be of significant influence on an adolescent’s criminal actions, especially if the parents are affiliated with gangs or abuse drugs. Thus, children lack the right role model and are at risk of engaging in crimes due to lack of guidance. Therefore, they should not be punished through death.

Capital punishment is a violation of the Eighth Amendment because it is morally unacceptable in this era of civilization. In determining whether or not a given penalty is morally acceptable, most of the United States courts have stated that punishment is valid unless it causes astonishment to the people’s conscience and sense of justice (Mitchel 269). Basing on the available knowledge that people have regarding capital punishment, it would be shocking and difficult for people to concur with the execution of teenagers, as this would weigh in on their conscience and decrease their belief in the justice system. To this end, capital punishment should not be applied.

Additionally, the execution of juveniles is highly prohibited by various bodies. Such bodies include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in times of war, and the United Nations Covenant on the Rights of the Child (Sethuraju, Sole and Oliver 46). Moreover, the juveniles are not entirely at fault for the crimes they committed since they are still under the care of their parents who should provide guidance and a sense of direction (Williams 271). In this sense, punishing juveniles by the death penalty for crimes committed due to poor upbringing, lack of parental guidance, or influence from a criminal environment is unjust.

Those who agree to the maintenance of the death penalty for juveniles have some specific reasons. First, it is a way of preventing future crimes in that, the loopholes in the system could be violated tie and again, leading to the juveniles committing crimes in future or end up as adult criminals(Brooker 3). The death penalty, therefore, is meant to ensure that criminal offenses are curbed, and to prevent juveniles from turning into adult capital offenders. Secondly, the death penalty allows the justice system to save money. Saving money occurs in the sense that, when a juvenile offender turns into an adult, every charge that entails prison stay costs the taxpayer’s money. Therefore, with the death penalty in place, the amount spent on paying for prisoners’ stay in prison will be less.

Support for the death penalty is based on retribution. Execution is considered a real form of punishment rather than the use of rehabilitative methods because the criminal’s suffering is proportional to the crime committed (Gongola, Krauss, and Scurich 96). Furthermore, the court is a just system of ensuring that justice is served. Some jurisdictions may be willing to prosecute on circumstantial evidence only which is a denial of the right to a fair trial. Such cases lead to the instances of juveniles being convicted of first-degree murder when they should have been convicted of second-degree murder or manslaughter. Thus, many people agree to the death penalty for juveniles since it ensures retribution.

Adolescents are old enough to understand what is right and wrong. According to the American Medical Association, cited in Sethuraju, Sole, and Oliver (55) the brain of an adolescent undergoes tremendous development even at the age of 17, and they, therefore, have the mental capacity to discern criminal activities on their own. Additionally, juvenile offenders are aware of the existing laws and regulations and might choose to commit crimes, knowing that they would get away with it (Wei 72). As such, they are entirely responsible for the crimes they commit.

Although those who support the death penalty for juveniles agree that it ensures retribution, there can be other ways to ensure that punishment is adequately inflicted on juveniles for serious crimes. For instance, methods such as long prison sentence without parole could be an effective way to ensure that juveniles are punished for the most serious crimes (Girling 345). Both sides would agree that execution is the denial of one’s right to life and that long-term prison sentences would serve to teach a lesson to the offender. For punishment to be just, it should be proportional to the degree of severity that will be sufficient to deter others (Wei 23). Therefore, long-term imprisonment would be effective in deterring others from committing criminal offenses, knowing that once they go to prison, there is no coming out.

The death penalty for juvenile capital offenders is unjust and cruel. Each person has the right to life, which should not be denied under any circumstances. In this way, they are not entirely responsible for their actions, thus imposing a death penalty would be unfair. However, some adolescents may cause harm due to their repeated crimes, and the death penalty could set an example to the rest. To this end, jurisdictions should consider alternative methods of making the young people pay for their mistakes, for instance, through long-term imprisonment.

Annotated Bibliography

Benekos, Peter J., and Alida V. Merlo. “A Decade of Change: Roper V. Simmons, Defending Childhood, And Juvenile Justice Policy.” Criminal Justice Policy Review30.1 (2019): 102-127.

In this article, Peter and other authors discuss the changes in juvenile justice over the last decade. They ascertain that during this time, different strategies have been established to identify and respond to children exposed to violence. According to the authors, after the implementation of those strategies for prevention and intervention, crime has greatly decreased. In this article, the authors discuss two important factors that contributed to the continuing repetitions of juvenile justice. The first factor is influenced by the decisions made by the supreme court to restrict excessive juvenile punishments and the introduction of policies that recognize the impact of childhood trauma and the need for relevant treatment. The second factor is to understand the consequences of child suffering leading to the need to support and take care of the children exposed to violence. This study provides relevant information on the importance to avoid harsh treatment and retribution of the youth and offers insights on policy changes to reform juvenile justice.

Brooker, Dale J. “Death Penalty for Juveniles.” The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice(2017): 1-4.

In his article, Brooker provides a comprehensive approach to the juvenile death penalty in the United States and how it has evolved since the Colonial Period. According to Brooker, the death penalty was reserved for the most serious offenses in the society. From a socio-historical perspective, he presents how the juvenile death penalty brought struggles, especially when punishing juveniles as adults in society. Additionally, his article addresses the legal perspective of handling cases and how juvenile death penalty has been challenging the Supreme Court of the United States in balancing the principals of an evolving society and the need for justice. Furthermore, from an international perspective, the author argues that the juvenile death penalty still exists around the world and has not been fully abolished. However, the twenty-first century has been experiencing the abolition of death penalties for juveniles, especially in the United States. Despite these tremendous changes, Brooker argues that the debate n how sentencing the juvenile offenders who engage in serious crimes remains in discussions. Brooker’s article is important in provide arguments both in support of the death penalty on juvenile offenders and against it. It is also reliable since it provides well-reasoned arguments based on strong evidence on the topic of discussion.

Girling, Evi. “Sites of Crossing and Death in Punishment: The Parallel Lives, Trade‐offs and Equivalencies of the Death Penalty and Life without Parole in the US.” The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice 55.3 (2016): 345-361.

Girling researched the continuities and discontinuities between the death penalty and life without parole punishments. The article discusses the reasons why the US government is taking away the death penalty code and replacing it with life without parole punishment. The author argues that the death penalty does not offer the offender a chance to reflect on his/her dignity and cruelty. On the other hand, the author adds that replacing the death penalty with life without parole as punishment, reform strategies need to be implemented to recapture and understand the death work of life without parole. This research is a sound argument for the impact of the death penalty on the offenders and can be used to understand why it is relevant to replace the code with life without parole punishment. Therefore, the use of this information will be critical in orienting the reader to understand why it is not necessary to implement the death penalty.

Gongola, Jennifer, Daniel A. Krauss, and Nicholas Scurich. “Life without Parole For Juvenile Offenders: Public Sentiments.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law23.1 (2017): 96.

Gongola, Krauss, and Nicholas researched public sentiments about life without parole for juvenile offenders (LWOP). According to the researchers, the United States Supreme Court lately eliminated mandatory life imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders. The court held that based on its evolving standards of decency jurispendence and the eighth amendment, the practice is inconsistent. Moreover, the court left open for the public to decide whether not mandatory LWOP was still consistent according to the constitutional standards. This research also examines the sentiments of society on juvenile LWOP. An online questionnaire was conducted on juvenile LWOP in response to a specific case and general policy in which the participants had to impose a prison sentence on juveniles convicted because of murder. Majority of participants favored Juvenile LWOP on a specific case, especially with offenders’ ages. This research is vital in presenting the solution of imprisonment as a common ground to resolving the issue of the death penalty among the juveniles. Since this is original research, it is more reliable in providing extensive information on the solution.

Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2017 Fact Sheet. (2017). Retrieved from https://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=401533

Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2017 is an article written by the Committee on Education and Labor Republicans. The article explains how helping adolescents stay away from crimes has been a national priority which needs more than a dentition facility and an adjudication system. In order to help the local and state leaders serve the youth at risk and promote safer communities, congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. This law helps in coordinating the efforts of the federal government in improving the conditions of juvenile Justice Systems with its main focus being rehabilitation and education. Furthermore, Juveniles are up to 26% more likely to commit other crimes and return to jails as adults with most of them not graduating from high school. This article is useful in addressing the effects of crimes and how leaders can help develop effective juvenile justice programs. It is also reliable since it is written by government practitioners.

Mitchell, Jonathan F. “Death Penalty Commentary Series: Capital Punishment and the Courts.” Harv. L. Rev. F. 130 (2016): 269.

In his article, Mitchell presents a series of explanations on the death penalty, capital punishment, and the courts. Mitchell also alludes that the issue on whether or not the government should impose capital punishment has been a widely discussed topic empirically and philosophically. By considering the empirical question on whether capital punishment can save innocent lives by deterring murder, Mitchell presents studies with evidence against and for the argument. He also addresses the extent of capital punishment in deterring murder and how far the rational criminal actors who have been deterred by the prospect of capital punishment can go. Moreover, a discussion on how capital punishment increases the rate of murder through violence and brutality is addressed. This article is useful in presenting both sides of o the argument on whether the death penalty on juveniles is ethical and the risks faced by innocent people who have been wrongly convicted or executed. It reliability lies on the philosophical questions answered and the approach to the retribution of criminal punishment.

Sethuraju, Raj, Jason Sole, and Brian E. Oliver. “Understanding Death Penalty Support and Opposition among Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Students.” SAGE Open 6.1 (2016): 2158244015624952.

This article provides an overview of death penalty support and opposition among law enforcement and criminal justice majors. The authors of this article conducted a research to measure reasons for support or opposition to the death penalty as capital punishment, and the results indicated that the reasons behind support or opposition among the two majors were not significantly different. Further, the article emphasizes on the insights of law enforcement students about the idea of the death penalty as a form of capital punishment. The authors state that there are notable differences of support or opposition to the death penalty among the students. Therefore, this article will be resourceful as it will provide the reader with essential knowledge and background information on understanding the dependent and independent variables involved in supporting or opposing the death penalty among the different population. The information from this article will be vital by helping the reader understand the views of different people on the death penalty, and with that information, the reader can come to a stand on supporting or opposing the death penalty as a form of capital punishment.

Williams, Kenneth. “Why and How the Supreme Court Should End the Death Penalty.” USFL Rev. 51 (2017): 271.

Williams article takes an approach to whether the USA should continue employing the death penalty since the supreme court brought an end to litigations over the constitutionality of the death penalty execution methods. The purpose of this article is to discuss the constitutionality of the death penalty. Williams argues that the death penalty should not be accepted and he offers insights as to why there is a decline of public support for the death penalty. Most importantly, he addresses the reasons behind the public support decline. Part two of this article discusses the methods used by the legislature and the supreme court to rectify the problems hindering the death penalty litigation and the reasons behind the failure of the attempt. Also, in part two, he offers available options to replace the death penalty either through reform and regulation or abolish the act. Therefore, the arguments presented in this article will provide the reader with an insight into why the abolishment of the death penalty is the best option moving forward.

Wei, Tianlan. “To Abolish or to Retain: Debating the Death Penalty in the United States.” 2018 3rd International Conference on Modern Management, Education Technology, and Social Science (MMETSS 2018). Atlantis Press, 2018.

Wei’s article gives an overview of the action towards abolishing death penalties in the world. The writer talks about the current status of the death penalty in the United States and recalls its history. To establish a discussion on whether or not to abolish the death penalty, the author gives the readers a comprehension on the case of Furman v Georgia which plays a role in transforming the debate on the abolition of the death penalty as well as the public opinions. According to Wei, the goal towards abolishing the death penalty is not an easy task given the complexity of the issue. The main argument that underpins this change is an ethical move which argues that the death penalty is immoral for the society since it involves killing. However, some countries like the United States and China have resisted ending it as a form of punishment. This article also considers the complex evolution of the death penalty debate in the United States. During the 1970s death penalty was considered just and right, but in the contemporary world, the action is viewed as wrong. The Furman v Georgia case was a transformative step which led to the reduction of the death penalty for some time. The author presents a likability of the death penalty to reducing in the distant future. He also argues that there is a need to develop more effective ways of dealing with criminals since the death penalty does not fully deter crime. This article is useful in providing both sides of the argument on the death penalty in general and is reliable because it presents real-life examples of cases along with explanations.

Work Cited

Benekos, Peter J., and Alida V. Merlo. “A Decade of Change: Roper V. Simmons, Defending Childhood, And Juvenile Justice Policy.” Criminal Justice Policy Review30.1 (2019): 102-127.

Brooker, Dale J. “Death Penalty for Juveniles.” The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice(2017): 1-4.

Gongola, Jennifer, Daniel A. Krauss, and Nicholas Scurich. “Life without Parole For Juvenile Offenders: Public Sentiments.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law23.1 (2017): 96.

Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2017 Fact Sheet. (2017). Retrieved from https://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=401533

Mitchell, Jonathan F. “Death Penalty Commentary Series: Capital Punishment and the Courts.” Harv. L. Rev. F. 130 (2016): 269.

Williams, Kenneth. “Why and How the Supreme Court Should End the Death Penalty.” USFL Rev. 51 (2017): 271.