Miller vs Alabama

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

With the escalation of murders and rapes committed by minors as seen in recent years the people are looking for the right answer. Public concern over the effectiveness of the juvenile courts when dealing with these offenders has brought about change in the justice system. (Stolba, 2001). The courts now, are quicker to transfer a juveniles’ case to adult court than when the juvenile system was first formed. There stands a conflict of interests within the two court systems. Juvenile courts are to protect the rights of youths determined incapable of adult decisions. The primary concern is that the youth be rehabilitated and not become a repeat offender. Thus, protecting the child from incarceration with adult criminals and any possible future victims. The concerns of the adult court is to make sure the convicted offender pays for their crime and that the victim gets justice. Rehabilitation is not a primary concer of the adult justice system.

Roper, the sentencing of minors would be legal, constitutional and uphold Stanford v. Kentucky; conversely, if the court ruled in favor of the defendant Christopher Simmons, the death sentence of both Simmons and all future juvenile convicts would be considered “cruel and unusual” according to the Eighth Amendment and effectively overturn Stanford v. Kentucky.

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.

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.

Gail Garinger, the author of “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences,” argues that children should not be struck down for life because they commit the most vile and horrible crimes imaginable, based on the sole fact that they are still adolescents, and that they should be given the chance for parole and rehabilitation because they are not fully developed; therefore, in her article she shows exceptionally strong ethos to support her claim. Garinger first exposes her strong ethos by using the authority of the Supreme Court to exclaim why the youth shouldn’t be punished to a life sentence for homicide or manslaughter by saying, “the Supreme Court

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

Eight Amendment imposes States to give the juveniles opportunity to parole, because it prohibits courts from giving cruel sentences. “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const. Amend. VIII.

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.

Standards of decency have evolved, and have progressed with a maturing society; therefore, its applicability must also change to fit the basic mores of society. The Court explained that only 12 jurisdictions actually had applied such sentencing laws for juveniles, and the national consensus was against the sentencing practice in general. The Court considered states to look beyond what would be considered barbaric punishment to sentences that are disproportionate to the crime based on the category of offenders. Because juveniles have distinct psychological and social characteristics, life imprisonment without parole would for a non-homicidal crime would be considered disproportionate, as it would not allow room for the goals of punishment to be met in regards to retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. In comparison to adults, juveniles display a lesser capacity to reason and form logical decisions. They also are vulnerable to outside influences and their personalities have yet to be fully-formed. Therefore, they are more capable of rehabilitating than adults. The majority stated that a life imprisonment without the possibility of parole would deny a juvenile any chance from being rehabilitated in any way and states must provide juvenile offenders with some meaningful opportunity of release contingent on their maturity and rehabilitative progress. Lastly, the majority stated that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a non-homicidal juvenile offender from being kept in prison for life. However, it does prohibit a judgement that the juvenile could never be fit to re-enter

In today’s society there has been an increase in the crimes committed by juveniles. Most juveniles have underlining factors that have caused them to choose this type of lifestyle. Many children in the juvenile system have come from impoverish stricken neighborhoods and are festered with gang activity which has made them a product of their environment. The minds of adolescents do not allow them to see how they are affecting their lives. A study was conducted, and according to the article, “Adolescents in Adult Court: Does the Punishment Fit the Criminal?”, when children mature, they will look back at their past and possibly leave their surroundings. Think about two people committing the same crime, both with the same thought process and ability to make decisions, except one is a juvenile and the other is grown. Due to the lack of experience in decision-making or the time to evaluate the situation like the adult, the youth should be viewed as irresponsible. The fact that a child’s mind is still maturing should reassure people that they will not be the same person incarcerated a few years later.

Since the Juvenile Justice Court (JJC) was first established there has been a debate on when, and whether or not, Juveniles should be treated as adults when they commit heinous crimes. Prior to the establishment of the JJC, parents were responsible for the actions of their kids under the age of seven; juveniles were tried as adults. By establishing the JJC, teenagers were given privileges they previously had not held; such as being treated as delinquents rather than criminals when committing crimes that adults commit. Moreover, the Supreme Court has continued to give rights to juveniles by limiting the type of punishments that can be granted to juvenile delinquents. In the 2005 Roper vs. Simmons case, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for a juvenile delinquent to be given the death penalty. In the 2010 Graham v. Florida case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to assign life without parole to a juvenile charged of a non-homicidal charge, and must be given an opportunity to prove themselves as mature and able of rehabilitation. Even further, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to sentences juveniles under the age of eighteen to life without parole in the 2012 Miller v. Alabama case. Because of court decisions like these, juvenile delinquents no longer have to face the consequences of their actions. The justice system was set in place in order to maintain justice and order. If it refuses to do that then a messages is being sent to

The American people have been executing children in the pursuit of justice for more than three and one half centuries, beginning with the earliest days of Plymouth Colony. The most recent executions of juvenile offenders occurred in April and May of 1998. This centuries-old system of death for children’s crimes has always had major flaws, and the post-1972 modern era is little better. However, it was not until the last decade that American courts and scholars stumbled across this odd subtopic within the death penalty system. Now after fifteen years of debating, legislating, and deciding cases about the death penalty for offenders who commit crimes while under age

The death penalty sentence for juvenile offenders is an intense issue that creates polarizing ongoing debates. An example of a case needing scrutiny is the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Roper v. Simmons, where the decision was made by one vote difference. In this case, however, the situation was complex, as the defendant was under the age of 18. So, based on the decision made by the court, I believe the case was decided properly based on the Legal Realism theory. I agree with the idea that the death penalty for juveniles is unconstitutional and cruel, the same way it is for an adult. It should not be applied for capital crimes, although murder should receive a serious punishment for public safety, unless the case was an accident, or defending something you hold dear or self-defense.

In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the United States Supreme Court determined that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional to juvenile offenders. This decision is agreeable upon because adolescents do not receive the opportunity to reform themselves. As the Court suggests, life in prison violates the Eighth Amendment, which accounts for a ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, juveniles still must be held accountable for their actions and should be sentenced to a fair verdict according to their crime, whether they are an adult or not.