LINKS
Arts/Education
Associations
Books/Research
Family Links
Government
Grants/Funding
Health Links
International
National
Religious
State Links
Other Links

INTERACTIVE
Bulletin Boards

DISTANCE 
LEARNING
JJTAP
TRC

Asked and Answered 
By Lynn Doan, Internet Reporter

The juvenile death penalty has long been a nation-wide controversy, with the Supreme Court upholding its constitutionality in 1989 and opponents of the death penalty vying for its abolishment ever since. In 2004, the high court will revisit its decision, which made it legal in the U.S. to execute people for crimes they committed when they were 16 or 17. The justices will consider the issue in the case of Christopher Simmons, who was 17 when he robbed and murdered a woman. The Missouri Supreme Court overturned his death sentence last year, declaring the execution of minors unconstitutional. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final say. 

Currently, 38 states and the federal government use the death penalty. Five states have age 17 as the minimum, 17 states are set at age 16, while the remaining 16 states and the federal government use an age minimum of at least 18 for capital punishment.

Recently, Corrections Connection Network News asked David Elliot, Communications Director for the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP), and Michael Rushford, President of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF), whether age should determine the application of the death penalty or if the crime should be the deciding factor.
__________________________________________________

David Elliot
Communications Director
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

The United States prides itself on its treatment of young people. We spend millions of dollars to make sure our children stay in school, remain drug-free, refrain from tobacco use and do not become victims of abuse. We further protect our children by not allowing them to join the military, sign contracts or purchase alcohol.

Yet there is one area where we fall woefully short in the protection and nurturance of our children. That area is the criminal justice system. Last year, the United States was the only country in the world to carry out an execution for a crime committed by a child before he turned 18 years of age.

The young offender's name was Scott Hain and he was executed by the state of Oklahoma.

In the past decade, only a handful of countries have executed juvenile offenders. They include the U.S., Congo, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. In the past few years, most of these countries have announced they no longer will carry out such executions.

According to a 2002 Gallup survey, 69 percent of Americans oppose the death penalty for juvenile offenders. Furthermore, two U.S. Supreme Court justices recently have called the juvenile death penalty a "relic of the past" and a "shameful practice" that should be ended.

Professional organizations in the U.S. increasingly are speaking out on this issue. Groups ranging from the American Bar Association to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry to the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations to the National Mental Health Association have called for a ban on juvenile executions. And more organizations are joining this chorus almost every day.

One of these groups, the American Psychiatric Association, writes, "The death penalty is contrary to the fundamental premise of the juvenile justice system: that children can benefit from a treatment-oriented approach which includes accountability and graduated sanctions. It is not in society's interest to give up on children."

Why the sudden interest in the juvenile death penalty? In part because of emerging medical and scientific discoveries regarding brain development and maturation. Until recently, it was believed that the brain was fully developed by the age of 14. But we now know that the areas of the brain that regulate self-control, emotions and judgment do not stop developing until as late as age 17 or 18. Furthermore, psychiatrists now conclude that juvenile offenders have a greater capacity for rehabilitation than do adults because they are still in the "developmental period" and are more susceptible to change through successful intervention strategies.

Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that executing mentally retarded people violates the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. "Death is not a suitable punishment for a mentally retarded individual," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. Stevens added that because of their diminished culpability, mentally retarded people are less able to assist in their own defense and are exposed to a "special risk of wrongful execution."

The Supreme Court should apply the exact same reasoning to the execution of juvenile offenders. Youthful offenders are less culpable than adults because their brains are not fully mature, they do not handle social pressure, instinctual urges and other stresses the way adults do and they are more prone than adults to immature, reckless and dangerous behavior. The similarity between the execution of mentally retarded people and youthful offenders is that neither class of individuals can be held as culpable for their actions as can fully functional, fully developed adults.

It is time to end this practice. Common decency expects and demands no less.

__________________________________________________

Michael Rushford
President
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

In the case of Sanford v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court announced that it is not unconstitutional to give a death sentence to a person convicted of a capital offense who, at the time of the murder, was 17 years old. It is unclear if the Court would uphold a death sentence for a murderer who is younger than 17, but some states do have statutes allowing a death sentence for a murderer who is 16 at the time of the murder. Because there is no specific constitutional provision establishing an age limit for the death penalty, the authority to set such a limit is properly left to the voters or legislators in each state. 

The determination of an age limit for the death penalty is far more complex than the circumstances of any one murder case. There is no general assessment of the capabilities and understanding of any person of any age that is even slightly accurate. Many 15 year-olds have far better judgment and behave much more responsibly than many 40 year-olds. Furthermore, a 17-year-old Los Angeles street gang member has very little in common with a Kentucky farm boy of the same age. Their ages are among the least important indicators in a comparison between the two. 

Those who suggest that the Court should create a standard that would require the law to consider the street gang member and the farm boy to be equal are dangerously naïve. There is certainly nothing cruel or unusual about giving a lethal injection to anyone who murders for financial gain, gratification or multiple victims. 

While I personally do not think that America's worst murderers who are under 17 years old should receive a death sentence, I also don't consider my opinion to be the one everyone else should be forced to abide by. The voters in each state are constitutionally entitled to make this decision. The Supreme Court is not. 

One final point. The strongest advocates for a national, court-created, age limit are groups who oppose the death penalty for any murderer, regardless of how old they may be or the circumstances of the killings. In their ideal world, it would be unconstitutional to sentence Hitler to death. The emotional claims of such advocates, regarding their interest in making the death penalty fairer, should be judged with an understanding that they may have another agenda.