Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.
In 1988 the case of Thompson v. Oklahoma it claimed that the Constitution prohibits execution for crimes committed at age 15. The outcome of the decision was that a State’s execution of a juvenile who had committed a capital offense prior to age 16 violated Thompson unless the State had a minimum age limit in its death penalty. (2) The court decided that juveniles younger than 16 when they committed a crime may not be executed. Wayne Thompson is serving a life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole. Another case in the juvenile death penalty cases is Atkins v. Virginia; The U.S. Supreme Court banned the execution of mentally retarded persons in 2002. Justices ruled that executing mentally retarded criminals violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The most important
The death penalty is a capital punishment that is put into effect for major crimes. The death penalty is a very controversial topic in the United States and throughout the world. There was a time period were the death penalty was banned for about four years in 1972-1976. Many feel that the death penalty is justice because it is retribution toward criminals who have committed heinous crimes. However the death penalty is inhumane and should be abolished in the United States.
The big day was March 1st, 2005. The verdict was reached and the decisions were made in the Rehnquist Court. The Chief Justice William Rehnquist ruled against Simmons, the defendant. Being a strict constructionist, or one that strictly adheres to the Constitution, this decision was consistent with his beliefs because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the execution of minors is a cruel or unusual punishment. He reasoned that it was justified based on the defendant’s actions. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is also a strict constructionist, believing in loyalty to the original Constitution and also in judicial restraint, where she tends to support previous judicial rulings. In this case, she was somewhat consistent, since she voted against Simmons as well and voted to uphold the previous ruling (Stanford v. Kentucky), which ruled that the death sentence of minors was permissible. In fact, she even responded to the argument that many international laws have denounced execution of minors and death penalty in general by stating that international law should have no relevance on the supreme law of the United
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.
Miller v Alabama got rid of mandatory life sentences for juveniles and Montgomery v Louisiana made Miller v Alabama retroactive. These changes came about as people argued that it was against the eighth amendment, or cruel and unusual punishment, to sentence kids to life. The discretionary waiver allowed the judge to decide whether Pruitt should be tried as a juvenile or adult. In the end, she was tried as an adult and these changes cannot help her. This just goes to show how much a single decision can ruin someone’s
The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of mandatory life sentences without parole enforced upon persons aged fourteen and younger found guilty of homicide. The court declared unconstitutional a compulsory sentence of life without parole for children. The states have been barred from routinely imposing sentences based on the crime committed. There is a requirement for individual consideration of the child life circumstance or the defendant status as a child. The court rejected the definite ban on life sentences without parole. This is because in some cases the instances may be uncommon, but jurors
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.
1972, Furman v. Georgia. The opinion said, “[t]he Court holds that the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
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
Approximately two million adolescents a year are arrested and out of that two million, 60,000 of them are incarcerated according to the American Journal of Public Health. The 60,000 incarcerated adolescents each year are being tried as adults in court because of the serious crimes they have committed. The crimes they have committed are anything from armed robbery to murder. Some juveniles might be first time offenders and others might be repeat offenders. Crimes have always been a major issue in the United States and can cause controversy in the criminal justice system. Charging a minor as an adult in criminal court varies from state to state based on each state’s jurisdiction. Some states consider anyone up to the age of 18 still a juvenile and would not be charged as an adult in criminal court, but other states may charge a juvenile as an adult at the age of 16 or 17. Jordan (2014) states, “Although states already had methods for transferring youth to the adult system, as a result of the growing fear of juvenile violence, most states implemented new laws to increase the number of youth entering the adult criminal system’ (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Torbet et al., 1996)” (p. 315). While it sounds beneficial to incarcerate more adolescents in the adult criminal justice system to avoid juveniles from committing crimes in the future, that is not always the case. Incarcerating these juveniles can be life changing in a negative
On June25, 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who committee murder could not be stentced to life in prison because it violates the eighth amendment. I understand that it violates the eighth amendment, but if we don’t stop these kids doing this kind of crime then we are letting them know that it is okay for them to do it at a young age when it’s not. Then we ask ourselves what we could’ve done when we lose a love in the violate choice that they chose. I would disagree with the Supreme Court in this case because we have to let them learn their lesson, they need to start to take responsibility, and because it has nothing to with the mentally.
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
Christopher Simmons was not your typical American teenager. Abused and neglected as a young boy, by the time he was seventeen years old he came a convicted murderer and was sentenced to the death penalty. His case quickly became under fire for overriding his Eighth Amendment right that stated that the federal government cannot impose cruel and unusual punishment upon anyone. Christopher Simmons was old enough and mature enough to understand that what he did was morally and socially wrong. If someone can completely conjure up a murder plot by oneself, then they should be sentenced to the death penalty no matter the age. Simmons should have received the death penalty despite his age at the time of the crime he
Serious crimes such as murder, burglary and rape have raised questions as to whether the young offenders should face severe punitive treatment or the normal punitive measures in juvenile courts. Many would prefer the juveniles given harsh punishment in order to discourage other young people from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to these particular offenders. However, results from previous studies indicate such punitive measures were neither successful nor morally acceptable. Instead, the solutions achieved have unfairly treated the youths and compromised the society status (Kristin, page 1).