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

Too many minors have committed violent crimes and haven’t gotten the consequences they deserved. In Time magazine article, “Children without Pity” written by Nancy Traver, it shows how the crime rates are going up and many minors aren’t getting the consequence they need. Given the violence of their actions, minors who commit violent crimes should be tried as adults.

As in any controversial issue, there are people that support the juvenile death penalty. One of the reasons they are pro death is because it could possibly discourage other juveniles from committing crimes (“Death Penalty for Juveniles Pros and Cons” 3). The idea is that if other juveniles have the knowledge that they could possibly be sentenced to death for committing a very serious crime, then it might stop the others from actually committing a serious crime (3). Between the years 1642 to 2000, there have been around 361 people sentenced and killed because of the crimes that they have committed when they

Other people argue that Juveniles may not have the mental capacity to know that this is wrong. This is, in fact, wrong in most cases. A child no matter what the age should know that killing or performing other atrocious acts on others is wrong.There are some exceptions such as mental illness and adverse effects from medications. According to https://flowpsychology.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-juveniles-being-tried-as-adults/, “because teenagers have full control over their thoughts and actions. If they do not have the moral compass instilled in them by that time, then they are very likely to commit more crimes.” This implies that, should teenagers not be tried as adults, they may never learn their lesson.Even if they don’t from harsher punishments; at least they will

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.

For example, sixteen-year old Sarah Kruzan was sentenced to life without parole for murdering her pimp. However, she is now 29 years of age, and says how she “deserved the punishment and that it is not okay to take anyone’s life” (Serwer, 1).In the same way how Sara Kruzan understood the wrong in her actions, minors can do the same and change their behaviour, allowing them to be respected by society once again. Another teen killer, Jacob Ind murdered his parents while they were laying in bed. However, Jacob and his brother were physically and emotionally abused by their parents. Years later, Jacob told a local news station that he killed his parents, because he was too “weak to directly confront them and that it was of pure selfishness” (Serwer,

A murder is a murder, no matter what the age. Today, teenagers are committing crimes no one should be committing. They are stealing cars, lying, ruining property and killing. These juveniles all go into different categories. Some commit crimes for the thrill and do not regret it and some act on impulse and wish it never happened.

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.

In today’s society, it would be assumptive that the juvenile justice system would take the necessary precautions to preserve and or rehabilitate the juveniles that are present in its system. With this in mind adolescents still, face sentencing of life without the possibility of parole and trials transferred to adult court. When you think of adolescence, the term development or puberty may come to mind. Teens or pre- teens are still in developmental stages of their lives and tend not to think or act on the level that an adult would. Juvenile justice focuses on the mere ideal that juveniles are not adults and should not be treated or tried as such. Heinous crimes, such as murder, could possibly draw a wedge between this thought. Taking the life

A 16 year old boy is at the peak of their adolescent life, learning and discovering about puberty, maturity, right and wrong and future life goals. On the other hand, a man of 25 has matured, lived long enough to have made both good and bad judgments and has already been in the process of achieving those life goals they once thought of as a teenager. In a given situation, is it ethical to hold these two age groups, with mentalities that are worlds apart, to the same standards and punishments in the justice system? Until Roper v. Simmons in 2005, the justice system did just that, treat the actions of 16 year old with the same consequences as if they had been committed by an adult. In Roper v. Simmons the United States Supreme Court declared

An argument that’s been going around for years now is whether young teens should be sentenced to prison for life based on the crimes they have committed. According to author Gail Garinger who wrote the article “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences” strongly disagrees that they shouldn’t be sentenced for life because of their age and how they are not mature enough to understand their actions. However, Jennifer Jenkins, the author of “On Punishment and Teen Killers” strongly disagrees with the outcome of teen killers not being put behind bars for life for what they have committed. Therefore I, on the other hand agree with Jennifer Jenkins. Nobody, no matter how old you are shouldn’t get away with taking someone else’s life.

Regardless of age, a killer is a killer. A killer can be the daily customer you have at your job or the child you’re babysitting. “The Supreme Court justices would be wise as well as compassionate to strike a balance: Make juvenile offenders responsible for their actions but don't completely rob them of hope. And this should apply not only to the inmates who were 14 at the time of their crimes but to the remaining 2,497 who were 15 to 18 years old,” (Ellison 19). Kids make mistakes all the time, that doesn’t mean we should take their life away from them. With overlooking the listed factors in court when sentencing a juvenile, this will improve the number of children in prisons. Not all of these children partake in the act because of evil, but merely because of

Everyone needs to be held accountable for their actions. Murder is something that is very taboo in our society, and most children can positively see the consequences of it. When you take someone's life, there are major repercussions to that. Why should your age change that? If a child were to commit a murder, and walked away uncharged, how would that help them? They would view the criminal justice system as a joke. Why wouldn't you move on to worse crime if you know that there will be no consequences to it?

In 2005, the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons struck down the death penalty for juveniles. 22 Defendants had been executed for crimes committed as juveniles since 1976 ("Juvenile Offenders Who Were On Death Row | Death Penalty Information Center"). From the research I have gone through Tennessee has never executed a juvenile, to date the youngest person to be on death row is Sedrick Clayton, 33. (Courtesy: Tennessee Department of Correction).

In the article, Is rape a crime worth of the death penalty, was written by Ryan J. Winter who has a PhD in Psychology. In his article, he informs the reader of a past occurrence that happened in 1998 where the stepfather raped his stepdaughter and he was sentence to death. Dr.Winter also states that the death penalty against sexually abusing a minor is only available in five states. It also states that it exempts mentally retarded and people under the age of eighteen from the death penalty. Lastly, he advises the reader about prejudice among jurors. That it is challenging to find suitable jurors for sex offence crime cases because of the jurors’ personal beliefs.