Capital Punishment And Juvenile Punishment

One of the most controversial questions in the juvenile justice system today is, "Should the death penalty be applied to juveniles?”. A lot of people think that the death penalty for juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment and should only be used for adults. The crimes that juveniles commit are as dangerous and as violent as adult crimes. People argue that the adolescent brain does not mature until the late teens or early twenties, and that death penalty should not be the resolution. Some studies show that childhood abuse or neglect can causes the child to commit crimes when they grow to adulthood. Debate about the use of the death penalty for juveniles has grown more intense because of the crimes they are

Today, we live in a society faced with many problems, including crime and the fear that it creates. In the modern era, juveniles have become a part of society to be feared, not rehabilitated. The basis of the early juvenile justice system was to rehabilitate and create safe havens for wayward youth. This is not the current philosophy, although the U.S. is one of the few remaining countries to execute juveniles. Presently, our nation is under a presidential administration that strongly advocates the death penalty, including the execution of juveniles. The media and supporters of capital punishment warn of the "superpredator," the juvenile with no fear, remorse, or conscience. Opponents of this view encourage

Juveniles should not receive severe adult sentences for the murders they commit due to their underdeveloped prefrontal cortex not allowing them to fully process decisions and consequences at a young age. In fact, the prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain where decision making originates and does not fully develop until the age of 25. Furthermore, sentencing a juvenile as an adult while they are at an impulsive age and subject to peer pressure is resulting to cruel and unusual punishment as defined in the eighth amendment of the United States Bill of Rights. Eventually, imposing an adult verdict over a juvenile would inhibit a proper rehabilitation for the convicted juvenile. Hence, it is recommended that states that currently have life without parole or the death penalty laws, ratify a new law for juvenile convicts for proper sentencing and rehabilitation.

There are many controversial issues in our world today, and each of those issues is well debated by people who either support it or absolutely loathe it. One of those highly debated controversial issues is the juvenile death penalty. Since the Roper v. Simmons case in 2005, sentencing juveniles to death is considered illegal on the grounds that it violates the Eighth Amendment rights (Babcock 6). Although it is considered illegal in the United States, it is still a highly debated problem. There are people that believe the juvenile death penalty is an effective punishment and should not be illegal. On the other hand, many believe that the juvenile death penalty is an extreme punishment and should not be an option when it comes to sentencing juveniles. With such a critical issue, it is only considered fair to understand both sides opinions about the juvenile death penalty.

Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is

The Death Penalty is a controversial topic on its own. However, if you add the possibility of a minor receiving the death penalty it gets even more interesting. The Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons was a perfect example of that. Roper v. Simmons presented the Supreme Court with two questions: 1) whether or not the execution of those who were sixteen or seventeen at the time of a crime is cruel and unusual punished and 2) does is violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. The main audience for this particular case is the general American population, and specifically affects the juvenile population.

In August of 2004, Robert Acuna was sentenced to the death penalty. His crime? Shooting his two elderly neighbors, James and Joyce Carroll, "execution style" and then proceeding to steal their car (Liptak). This heinous crime only adds to the current debate: should juveniles be sentenced as adults? The answer is yes, there should be no leniency displayed towards minors who commit the same serious crimes as adults. Although young, juveniles should be capable of understanding the serious extent of the crime they commit. Sentencing juveniles as adults will prevent perpetrators of major crimes, such as mass murder, from walking free. Furthermore, judges have enough experience to know whether to try a minor as an adult or not. Juvenile sentencing as adults is not a wrong but rather a form of justice in the face of rising teen violence.

The Supreme Court ruled that adolescent committed a murder cannot be sentenced to life in prison, because it violated the eighth amendment’s banning of cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling supports the claim that a punishment as such affects the juveniles that are imprisoned mentally and emotionally. Teenagers that committed a murder should not be sentenced with imprisonment to life because, this adolescent are able to be rehabilitated with proper family support.

One of the most controversial issues in the rights of juveniles today is addressed in the question, "Should the death penalty be applied to juveniles"? For nearly a century the juvenile courts have existed to shield the majority of juvenile offenders from the full weight of criminal law and to protect their entitled "special rights and immunities." In the case of kent vs. United states in 1996, Justice Fortas stated some of these "special rights" which include; Protection from publicity, confinement only to twenty-one years of age, no confinement with adults, and protection against the consequences of adult conviction such as the loss of civil rights, the use of adjudication against him

Two important cases that both have looked at the death penalty in various ways, may show that capital punishment is not applicable today. In the case Atkins v. Virginia, which took place in 2002, Daryl Renard Atkins was mentally retarded. Atkins was sentenced to death, but he appealed to the Supreme Court. This case takes a look at the question of whether executing a mentally retarded person is constitutional. The court ruled 6-3 that it is not constitutional to kill a mentally retarded person because the nation’s standards are changing and many are against such sentences (“Atkins”). It is clear that the death penalty is being applied less and less, which make it seem that it is no longer applicable today. This opinion is also backed up by the later case, Roper v. Simmons. The case was decided in 2004, but the events date back to 1993. Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death in 1993, but he was only 17. The lower courts ruled for Simmons, stating that the national opinion on killing a minor has changed. However, not many believed the lower court had the power to overrule the Supreme Court’s previous decision on Stanford v. Kentucky. The case went up to the Supreme Court where the court ruled in a 5-4 ruling for Simmons. The Court stated that the standards have changed in the past years, making it so that executing minors is no longer Constitutional (“Roper”). As shown by these cases, the national consensus on the death penalty is changing, which is no longer as necessary as it once may have

not be sentenced to life in prison because it violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Both sides of the argument have credible evidence on why their opinions are swayed, however each side has inconsiderate repercussions. There are juveniles who are under the age of eighteen, who are at many times given life in prison with parole for murder because of the Supreme Court ruling. Yet, there is no black or white answer that will solve whether we should punish minors with life in prison with parole. Cases should be determined on the murderer’s maturity, impetuosity during the situation and his failure

On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court spoke that juveniles who committed a serious crime such as a murder could not be sentenced to life in jail.This all due to the Eighth Amendment on cruel and unusual punishment. The Juvenile justice system has caused controversy since then about to sentence minors to life sentence or not. There are many sides and strong opinions about it. Many authors concerned about Juvenile justice agree or disagree about minors treated into an adult justice system. The argument has targeted young juveniles such age as seventeen to be treated as an adult or to be still treated as a minor. My opinion about this controversial issue is to treat these juveniles as adults but trial them as actual adults until they have reached

Capital punishment for juveniles is one of the most controversial topics to ever be explored in society and in the criminal justice system. The death penalty is a rare occurrence amongst juveniles since it is so arguable as to whether they should be tried as adults. Lynn Cothern from the Juvenile Justice Resource Center suggests that “the primary purpose of the juvenile justice system is to hold juvenile offenders accountable for delinquent acts while providing treatment, rehabilitative services, and programs designed to prevent future involvement in law-violating behavior” (Cothern). The juvenile death penalty has been argued over for centuries and has stirred enough people to still be around today. While juveniles have been known to commit heinous crimes, sentencing a juvenile to death is an inhumane and cruel fate to serve someone who is incapable of making rational lifelong decisions, and should not be allowed in the juvenile justice system.

In the United Sates, the first juvenile death penalty recorded occurred in 1642 of a minor under the age of 18 and the youngest person ever given the death penalty was ten-year old James Arcene in 1885 for robbery and murder (Strater, 1994-1995). By 1994 there were only 9 states, among which were New Jersey, Kansas, and Maryland, that prohibited the death penalties for juveniles. In 2003 the number of states permitting capital punishment declined to 21, a number of them allowing this punishment to those as young as 16 (Steinberg & Scott, 2003). Since the days of the first juvenile execution approximately 362 more juveniles have been

Capital punishment is a custom in which prisoners are executed in accordance with judicial practice when they are convicted of committing a “capital crime.” Capital crimes are crimes considered so atrocious that they should