Crime, Culpability And The Adolescent Brain By Mary Beckman

On the fateful day of July 28, 1999, six year old Tiffany Eunick was beaten to death by a 6 foot tall and 160 pound Lionel Tate. The autopsy report showed that Tate reportedly stomped on Eunick so hard her liver was lacerated, and the young girl sustained multiple bone fractures so severe that she was pronounced dead at the hospital hours later. Tate was controversially convicted of felony murder and thus sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. Now why was this sentence so controversial? Because Lionel Tate was only twelve years old at the time of the murder. How do we determine mental competence of someone whose brain is still developing? How could someone who has not even finished puberty possibly understand the sever implications of such a brutal crime? How can we possibly try a juvenile as an adult when juveniles are proven to have diminished impulse control? This paper will discuss the history of charging juveniles of adults, discuss the issues that make this practice wrong while negating opposing arguments, and explain the various consequences that come with charging juvenile offenders as adults.

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

The court said that because of their youth, their brains are less developed, they are more impulsive, more subject to peer pressure and less able to see the consequences of their actions. Researchers have started to look into the development of the brain from the ages of 3 to 20 years old. Brain research by Thompson and others suggests that teenagers are unformed, less mature and less resistant to peer pressure than adults are. According to Thompson’s research, “gray matter, which brain researchers believe supports all our thinking and emotions, is purged at a rate of 1 percent to 2 percent a year” (89). He also states that, “these frontal lobes, which inhibit our violent passions, rash actions, and regulate our emotions, are vastly immature throughout the teenage years” (89). Teens do know what they have done and they are capable of understanding right from wrong but their brains aren’t developed enough to make fully mature decisions.

Through cases such as Roper v. Simmons we are able to acknowledge and see the motions that bring juveniles into committing crime. Not only through his case but through research it is noted that that maturity/ brain development, peer influence/pressure, communication with parents, social differences, and insufficient education has a high leverage on the existence of juvenile crime. Christopher Simmons at 17 murdered Shirley Crook and was initially sentenced to death.

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.

The decision whether the life sentence without parole is cruel and/or unusual punishment, is a world wide problem. On this article, Brown brings up cases about teenagers who have committee murder by accident or on purpose and how they should be punished. The reason why I want to use this article is for the disagreement I feel on this argument, how the brain hasn't develop and why the teens should take responsibility for its actions.

In the article, “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” (May 25, 2001), by Paul Thompson, the author argues that teenagers should not be legally treated as adults because their brains are not fully developed. First Thompson raises a question whether teenagers should be tried as adults after the trial of fourteen-year-old Nathaniel Brazill who is charged with second-degree murder for the shooting of his middle school teacher. Following up the numerous questions from reporters and teen advocates, Thompson informs the audience about the loss brain tissue in teenage brains and its correlation to the teenagers’ violent tendencies. After elaborating that teenagers need the correct guidance to steer their development onto the right path, he concludes

Considering the behaviors of an adolescent in the same manner as that of an adult is unfair. Juvenile brains are still developing, which means that they perform differently than adult brains (AACAP). Adolescents are more likely to act on impulse, get involved in fights, and engage in risky or dangerous behavior. They are less likely to think before they act or consider the consequences of their actions (AACAP). Weighing this scientific fact, it is unfair to assume that a juvenile committed a delinquent act with the same forethought of an adult. The mental development of a juvenile makes it difficult to prove that they established the mens rea equal to that of an adult guilty of the same offense.

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

Consequently, teenagers are often impetuous and have a difficult time controlling their emotions. However, this does not serve as an excuse for committing crimes with great magnitude such as murder. In The Sacramento Bee, Greg Krikorian published the results of a study conducted by a University of Massachusetts professor in an article titled “Many Kids Called Unfit for Adult Trial.” According to the findings of the study, “performance in reasoning and understanding for youths ages sixteen and seventeen did not differ from those at least eighteen years of age.” (Greg Krikorian 7) Although younger teenagers may not have the same reasoning potential, based on the performed study, sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, in comparison to adults, have very similar thinking abilities. Thus, the brain development of these teenagers is almost, if not completely, finished. As a result, trying teenagers ages sixteen and up as juveniles is not fair to adult convicts, considering the fact that both groups have the same reasoning abilities. Thus, juveniles ages sixteen and up should be tried as adults. However undeveloped their brains may be, teenagers fully understand the consequences of their

Among the reasons adolescents are incapable of the same reasoning and maturity as an adult is the fact that their brains have not yet fully developed. According to the “Young Adult Development Project” at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT), the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s. As a result, minors do not possess the mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. They cannot fully comprehend the seriousness of the situation until it is already too late. Teenagers are especially susceptible to this, which can lead to regret, guilt and many obvious mistakes. Researchers at MIT point out the limitations of the teen brain in their Young Adult Development Project, “At the same time young adults are experiencing new levels of sophistication in thinking and emotional regulation, their brains are undergoing changes in precisely the areas associated with these functions.” Additionally, The University of Rochester Medical Center writes in their article “Understanding the Teen brain” that “Good judgement is not something [minors] can excel in... yet.” In 2016 a 10-year old boy shot and killed his brother while they were playing cops and robbers with a rifle he did not know was loaded.

Treating adolescents and adults as one entity creates issues because adolescents differ significantly from adults in their capacity to make sound decisions. Studies clearly illustrate the brain is still constructing pieces of decision-making and behavior throughout adolescent years and lack the ability to fixate on the consequences of their behavior. These vulnerabilities cultivate impulsive reactions and cloud judgment choices. Because of this, teens benefit more from the juvenile system which focuses on punishment and treatment, unlike adult court which concentrates on punishment and incarceration (Toshumba). As a result of incomplete brain development, characteristics including personality, temperament, mentality, and

Young kids are constantly in trouble at home, and especially with the law. In 2005 while striking down the death penalty of juveniles, the Supreme court declared that because of their youth, their brains is less developed which makes the more impulsive to get in trouble.

Many young adolescents who have committed horrendous crimes have been a huge topic amongst the Supreme Court. Whether young adolescents are viewed as innocent, naive children to the public, this not changed the fact they can commit brutal crimes. In spite of the fact that adolescents have committed brutal crimes such as murder, one needs to understand that their brains are not as fully developed as an adult brain would be. Adolescents should not be trialed to a life sentence or attend adult prisons; however, they should be punished for their actions and undergo rehabilitation programs to help them be prepared to fit in with the rest of society.

A number of researchers have suggested over years that teenage brains are not yet fully developed. At the National Institute of Mental Health researchers have studied the human brain ever since the stage of birth all the way to adulthood, to prove that the brain is not complete. When it comes to this topic, Americans assume that if a teenage commits a crime than they should not be held accountable because of their age. Yet they must consider that teens are capable of understanding the situation they are in, how they are looked upon as young adults,, and how they should learn from their mistakes.