Punishing Teen Killers

An essay written in 2004, arguing the appropriate punishment for

teenage killers.

Applying the appropriate punishment for the atrocity of murder is

critical in serving justice to victims and their families. In countries
where Capital Punishment is permitted, such as in the United States, teen
killers should not be immune to the harsh consequence of their brutal
actions.
The Juvenile Justice System was introduced to save and restore
young offenders. Arguments frequently used to justify juvenile
rehabilitation include: reduced mental capacity for juvenile decision-
making, lack of family structure, abusive childhoods, and other at-risk
factors including drastic economic changes.
Evidence exists to show that, while the juvenile system and the three
strikes law may assist in rehabilitating minor juvenile delinquents and
less serious offenders, the system has failed in the attempt to rehabilitate
juveniles who commit brutal crimes such as rape and murder. Some
juveniles are evil and sadistic in nature and intentionally kill. These
juveniles must be held accountable for the severity of their crimes in the
same way as adults.
How should they be punished? Executing juveniles weighs heavily
on the consciousness of society. The tender age of juvenile criminals is
the nucleus of the controversy in determining an effective solution to the
problem.
The Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency was founded
in the 19th century to rehabilitate juvenile delinquents rather than
incarcerate them alongside adult offenders. Juveniles targeted for such
protection were those considered at-risk: urban children with no family
structure or guidance. Children who fell into this category were
considered more likely to adopt a life of crime. The Society for the
Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency appears to have focused only on
stereotypical problem children and juvenile delinquents. It has neglected
to allow consideration for juvenile delinquents from wealthy and
seemingly traditional, secure family backgrounds who intentionally
commit violent crime - case in point, the 1989 shotgun killing by the
Menendez brothers of their parents. The brothers were not juveniles at
the time of the murders, but they were youths. The Menendez brothers
blamed parental abuse. Although the motive has not been confirmed,
greed may have been a factor. Juveniles and young people from wealthy
backgrounds kill. Focusing on the rehabilitation of at-risk children does
not include a suitable program for offenders not considered at-risk, and
does not help identify what truly causes juveniles to commit violent
crimes.
Historical events; the agricultural crisis in the Southern US in 1890,
which affected Wall Street in 1893, subjected the US to a massive
Depression in the late 1890’s, the economic effect being on a par with
the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Then came Industrialization, a
period of increased productivity and development, which created
additional unemployment and overcrowded cities and subsequently led
to an increase in crime and corruption. Next came the Progressive Era
Reformers, a new middle class structure of young professionals aiming
to address society’s problems and stamp out anything they considered to
be destructive to society. The Reformers were not concerned with guilt
or innocence of juvenile offenders. They believed in rehabilitation and
protection of juveniles. They were concerned about the experience
juveniles faced when incarcerated in crowded prisons with adult felons.
Campaigns by these Reformers led to the first State Juvenile Court
assembling in 1899 in Cook County, IL.
In the late 1890’s, the majority of crime committed by juveniles was
far less aggressive than the violent acts and vicious murders committed
by juveniles today, thereby conveying to society that rehabilitation of
young offenders has not prevented the viciousness of the crimes from
intensifying. By the late 1980’s – early 1990’s, juvenile murder rates had
risen even further, elevating concern over the effectiveness of the
juvenile justice system, which has been attacked for being too soft on
crime.
Psychologists put forward support for juvenile rehabilitation by
concluding that those aged under 18 are incapable of making informed
decisions, backed by a society which does not permit them to vote, serve
on a jury, or enjoy other adult responsibilities. Psychologists maintain
the thinking capacity and mentality of juveniles does not parallel that of
adults, therefore they should not be subjected to the same harsh
punishment. In response, confirmed psychotic tendencies and mental
impairment should be the only significant factors taken into account
when determining the punishment for any violent offender. Age of the
offender should be irrelevant.
Mentally impaired violent juveniles should be hospitalized for
treatment. Psychotic, violent juveniles fall into the band of offenders
whom most likely cannot be rehabilitated, therefore, they, along with all
other cognizant juvenile offenders, should meet with the ultimate
punishment for their violent crime.
Juveniles have demonstrated how capable they are of handling a gun,
recognizing right from wrong, planning destruction, and killing
intentionally. In 1981, at age 17 and 4 months, Kevin Nigel Stanford
repeatedly raped and sodomized a woman during a robbery, and then
shot her in the face and back of the head to prevent her from testifying.
This brutal act showed his understanding of right from wrong.
Stanford’s intentionally brutal crime and clear cognizance of right and
wrong are grounds for him, and other juveniles like him, to be tried and
punished as adults.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold both demonstrated a sharp mentality,
technical knowledge, strong intellect, and the capacity to plan the
destruction of students, teachers, and their school at Columbine, in 1999.
Their plan was likely ignited by psychotic traits – Harris’ autopsy
revealed prescribed mood stabilizer drugs, also known as psychotropic
drugs or psychiatric medication, in his brain. Their websites and journals
recorded 2 years of in-depth, elaborate planning for their murderous
spree, which included building pipe bombs – something many adults do
not know how to do. Both juveniles, Harris and Klebold were fully
conscious of their objective and knew how to carry out their plan with
meticulous planning, which indicated a mental maturity matching adult
capacity. Having psychotic tendencies, both would most likely have
killed at some point in their lives. Rehabilitation would probably not
have removed the predisposition.
Society in general concludes a blanket understanding that those aged
under 18 do not have an adult mental aptitude and should be protected
by Law. Society does not always make the correct decisions about
people and many decisions are based on indiscriminate information such
as the results of various studies conducted or psychologist’s reports.
Significant evidence of the mental ability of juveniles to painstakingly
plan and carry out killings with as much aptitude as adults has been
ignored; example: Columbine investigator, Guerra, had 2 years prior
knowledge of Eric Harris’ website referencing how he built pipe bombs.
Guerra was concerned enough to write a draft affidavit for a search
warrant, yet it was never filed, possibly due to Harris’ age. 2 years later,
after Harris and Klebold murdered 13 people, not including their own
suicides, authorities discovered pipe bombs at the school.
In 1999, in Colorado, being in possession of a handgun while under
the age of 18 was considered a misdemeanor, yet there was no age
restriction correlated to the possession of rifles or shotguns. Between
1996 and 1997, 475 students aged 5-17 were expelled for violating the
Gun Free School Act in Colorado. 44 children and teenagers used
firearms to shoot and kill during 1996. The United States Department of
Education reported, in 1997, almost 6300 students in the US were
expelled for carrying firearms to school. Alarmingly, 5-year old children
were caught with firearms, yet society has still refused to seriously
consider the threat of these sadistic juveniles who are intent on killing
with the knowledge they will escape the ultimate punishment due to
their young age.
The juvenile justice system and juvenile court is a more recent
development in society’s approach to a solution to juvenile crime. In the
18th century, juvenile offenders were tried as adults from the age of 7. A
study conducted by Robert E. Shepherd, Law Professor at Richmond
University, revealed that, prior to the year 1900, at least 10 children in
the US were executed for crimes they committed while under the age of
14.
Many juveniles are abused, bullied, and affected by poverty and
economic change yet they do not turn to murder as a result.
Psychologists examining the tangible at-risk factors they consider to be
the cause of juvenile violence should also explore the mental disposition
of juveniles to determine their psychotic inclination. Some mental
disorders are not related to economic trend or environmental factors, and
not all juveniles can be rehabilitated.