Death Penalty Minors

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

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.

This topic was important to investigate mainly because it was a fairly common practice being used before the twenty-first century (over three-hundred teens have been executed between the time of the 1700s to the 2000s). Besides, young adults are immature in their own ways, so they do not know (still) what is right or wrong.

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.

If a ruthless fifteen-year old killed your mother, how would you want the inhumane murderer to be punished? How would you feel if you never got to see your mother alive again while her killer served only a short sentence before being released from jail? Clearly, one would want the worst violent punishment for that murderer to experience. We have to have a system where juveniles, even young juveniles, who commit extremely sophisticated violent criminalities, are not beyond the reach of the law. Truly, children are children. They are reckless and naïve when it comes to their actions, however if one commits a crime, moreover a violent crime, must be punished impartially according to what he/she deserves regardless of the age. Children who commit violent crimes should be held accountable for their actions and tried as adults.

Life without parole for minors has been ruled as a form of cruel and unusual punishment. There are multiple cases that will be talked about in the paper to explain why it is considered cruel and unusual, as well as the importance of each of these cases in relation to one another. Another important aspect that will be looked at is the resentencing of individuals who were sentenced to life without parole who now need to have their cases reviewed. These few important cases make a large impact on the criminal justice system every day.

The United States was the only country in the United Nations (UN) to oppose the abolition of the life without parole sentence for juveniles. The US was also the only country in the UN known to sentence juveniles to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, that is until the 2012 Supreme Court Ruling that mandatory life without parole sentencing for juveniles was deemed unconstitutional (Agyepong 83). Life without the possibility of parole for minors is a very controversial and sensitive subject, with overall speculation that such a stance violates the Eighth Amendment by virtue of its nature as cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles. To argue for the claim that minors are not culpable for their actions and that the mandatory life

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

Should a kid be put on death row for the killing of their parents? In most cases, i would say no, especially if the child has a mental disorder or has experienced something unimaginably traumatizing. Not in all cases should someone be held accountable for their actions, as in the case of Eric Smith, on january 22nd 1980. At the age of 13, he blamed his mother for his big glasses, freckles and red hair. Eric has a disorder that causes him to rage uncontrollable. After he was arrested, he was not given a death sentence, showing that not everyone can be fully accountable for their actions. It is not reasonable for everyone to be fully accountable for their actions especially when there are multiple factors involved.

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

Crimes are most associated with adults. Murder is especially most associated with adults. When a teenager commits such a crime such as murder they must be tried, and they should not be treated with leniency and coddling, but with the full force of the law as an adult.

  The punishment of juvenile criminals, specifically those between the ages of 13 and 18, in the event that they commit crimes of murder, is not severe enough. Minors between these critical ages in the teenage life who commit crimes of murder should be prosecuted as adults in all situations and locations.