Juvenile and the Death Penalty

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

In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While

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.

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

Everyone, especially in matters of serious crimes, should get the Justice they deserve. In a juvenile court, the sentences will be less stringent because of someone's age. An example is given on the website https://flowpsychology.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-juveniles-being-tried-as-adults/, “In 2006 a 12-year-old girl killed her entire family for not approving of her boyfriend. She was only given 10 years.” Juvenile courts are not allowed to deliver the death penalty. In a situation where the death penalty would

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.

The constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty reached a settlement in 1988 in the case of Thompson v. Oklahoma when four Supreme Court Justices reached the conclusion that: persons under sixteen years of age cannot be sentenced to death (Thompson v. Oklahoma, 1988). Justice Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun considered these important issues as they were deliberating on the case: (1) Does a national consensus forbidding executions of juveniles exist?; (2) the extent to which the laws of other Western European nations prohibit or permit the execution of juveniles, and the opinions of " respected professional organizations;" (3) the degree to which the juveniles should be held responsible for their actions; (4) Whether the execution of juveniles contributed to the retributive or deterrent goals of punishment; and (5) Whether the small number of juveniles executed represents the "waton and freakish" application of the death penalty as condemned by Justice Stewart in Furman V. Georgia (Furman v. Georgia, 1972: 2763, Thompson v. Oklahoma, 1988: 487 U.S. 815). Following the decision, thirty eight states and the federal government created statutes authorizing the death penalty for certain forms of murder and other capital offenses ( Streib 1 of 2). Thompson v. Oklahoma held that no state within the minimum age line within its death penalty can go below the age of sixteen. Presently, fifteen states have chosen the min age of eighteen, four states have chosen

Villafana 1 Sarai Villafana Mrs. Kehmeyer ERWC 6 March 2015 Juvenile Justice research paper Minority disagrees that juveniles should have a second chance, but to be punished with a sentence to life in prison.As Latio stated,” Even a 17 and a half year old who sets off a bomb in a crowded mall or guns down a dozen students and teacher is a child and must be given a chance to persuade a judge to permit his release into society..” I strongly believe everyone within the years of 17 and younger should be able to have a second chance. The supreme court is on the right path to abolish mandatory life in prison for juveniles who commit murder. As Lundstrom states, “ but it can be used as evidence that teenagers are not yet adults, and the legal system should not treat them as such” (Lundstrom 88).

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.

We live in a society today, juvenile justice is a concern for law enforcement. One thing is for sure and that whether or not to try teens should be tried as an adult and be given adult sentence. In all of the states there are juvenile justice systems where teens are tried and put into juvenile jail . The main focus of these jails are to help them thru rehab t and make them better it just not a punishment . The thing is there so many teens out there being tried as an adult.. Although some people want the death sentence for teens there still doesn't exists only teens get life sentence instead but these juveniles do not deserve to be treated this way they should be treated better; they deserve a chance for a better life, a chance to change, and they are not going to have this chance in prison. Juveniles should not be tried as adults.

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

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

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.

  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.