The Death Penalty Sentence For Juvenile Offenders

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

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects us to not be putted into cruel and unusual punishments, but when it comes to the death penalty, things become more complicated. In my personal opinion, I believe the absolute interpretation of the 8th Amendment and that the death penalty undoubtedly violates the 8th Amendment. Looking at the case of “Furman v. Georgia (1972)”, the Court invalidated death penalty laws in the end because the justices considered the punishment of the death penalty was too cruel and unusual to the Furman’ sin, accidentally killing people, and disproportionately using the death penalty would result in more serious problems to the poor and minorities. This decision fully reflected the reliability of

The eighth Amendment states that the government is prohibited from cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is a complete violation of this amendment. Every one, guilty or innocent has the right to live freely, and the government taking away this simplicity of rights, is unconstitutional.

Aside from the eighth amendement, its also questionable if the death penalty disobeys the Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration of Independence it is stated that everyone has the right to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How can they enjoy those three things if they are getting forced to die? The Declaration of Independence was established for every American on this earth, including the imprisoned. So does it make sense to take away those rights of the constitution when it comes to the death penalty? Many would believe

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.

On December 17, 1992, 15 year-old Jacob Ind went to school after having murdered his mother and stepfather in the early hours of that morning. In an interview with Frontline he recalled, “I remember I was sitting in the police station and this is how out of touch of reality I was. I had a small amount of marijuana, like an eighth of an ounce, in my bedroom. And I 'm telling my brother, 'You got to get the marijuana or else I 'm in trouble” (Profile Jacob Ind). His attorneys contended that he was acting in self-defense, claiming that the murders were the climax of years of insult by his parents. On June 17, 1994, he was convicted and handed a mandatory sentence of lifetime without parole. This is just one of many life experiences of juveniles sentenced to life without parole in the U.S. There have been many other instances where the juvenile was not the real murderer, but was however given the lifetime without parole sentence. In those instances the defendant would have been convicted of felony murder, in which the defendant could have just been an active participant in a crime during which a murder was committed and consequently, spend life in jail without parole. Felony murder came into play in the case of Devon and Jovon Knox, in July 2007, the 17-year-old twins set out to steal a car together (Sentencing Juveniles). During the car jack, one of the brothers shot and killed the car’s owner. The panel could not decide which brother pulled

The federal government has an obligation to make just laws. Currently, US laws allow for the death penalty for certain heinous crimes. The supporters argue that the 5th Amendment, which guarantees that no one shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” implies that depriving someone of his or her life is permissible under the constitution as long as there is due process. However, there are several reasons why the federal government must abolish the death penalty - it weakens US moral authority over other nations; there have been too many wrongful convictions for death penalty in the US; the death penalty is in conflict with the 8th amendment of the US constitution; and finally, the cost of death penalty

Garinger was a former juvenile court judge, so Garinger is a very credible source when it comes to the topic of juvenile criminals. To support Garinger’s credible usage of ethos, he demonstrates that in 2005, Supreme Court acknowledged that even though juveniles have committed terrible crimes such as homicide “juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders” (6). This technique of providing the opinions of Supreme Court helps build Garinger’s credibility, and even more so that he is was a former juvenile court judges, so he most likely has a personal relationships with the Supreme Court. Readers feel sympathy to any juvenile who have been charged as adults and been sentenced to life without parole.

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.

Skip Hollandsworth candidly explores the subjects of juvenile crime and sentencing in the electronic long form newspaper article, “The Prisoner”. The purpose of the essay is to inform the reader about juvenile sentencing and to persuade the audience that there are clear problems with aspects of the U.S. prison system. The article is easily accessible to a large audience because it is online. Hollandsworth takes into account that his audience, mostly consisting of Texas Monthly readers, may already have pre-established notions about the topic, so he considers other sides while still supporting his argument. Edwin Debrow, a preteen member of the Crips, committed a murder when he was 12-years old and received a 27-year sentence through the

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.

The Eighth Amendment is intended to protect prisoners before they’re tried and after they’re convicted. It restricts excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. When looking back at laws from early America compared to the laws now, they were dramatically different regarding the death penalty. For example, in the 1600s, the Divine, Moral and Martial Laws, which provided the death penalty for even minor offenses such as stealing grapes, killing chickens, and trading with Indians, was proposed. Now, capital or first degree murder are typically the only offenses that will result in the death penalty as a punishment, where a couple hundred years ago people could get executed for simple, foolish offenses. Additionally, the Roper v.

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.

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” This amendment is most commonly used in context when discussing capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty. Many people in today’s society believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional, that it violates the Eighth Amendment because it is considered cruel and unusual punishment. This should not be considered cruel nor unusual because the people receiving the death sentence have committed unspeakable crimes, therefore, punishing them with the death penalty is fair. The death penalty can help prevent the act of lynching.

June 25th 2012, The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who commit murder could not be sentenced to life in prison or in other words juveniles could not be sentenced as an adult would be. The Supreme Court brought forth that sentencing juveniles to life in prison transgresses the eighth amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. How is a 17 year old criminal different from an 18 year old criminal who both commit a murder crime? Apparently the age creates a significant difference according to the Supreme Court. Maturity and Development of people under 18 are clear incentives that support the decision made by the Supreme Court. A murder is a murder, it will always be the action of taking away someone's life. How is “The Criminal didn’t know