You are on page 1of 7

Juvenile Execution should not be Allowed

Debate about the use to decease penalization for juveniles has grown more and more

because of the demand for harsher penalization for more serious crimes, and even

contemplating the legal aspects of the juvenile death penalty. There was a public

opinion poll in Oklahoma where citizens being ousted that 62 8% of those surveyed

would back up a legislative ban on the executing of juvenile wrongdoers. (Cothern 16-1)

As the public opinion poll demonstrates, many believe that the justice system should not

identify people under the age of 18 in the same category as grown adults, and

suggested that alternatives be considered. Juveniles and advocated appropriate

rehabilitative systems and between adults. Juvenile courts have recognized that there

are developmental differences. Change over toward stronger policies and penalizations

causes increase in violent crimes, the juvenile justice system has ever seen and still,

with the passage of revised death penalization statutes. Supporters of the death penalty

see this method as a different road for similar crimes, and the best way to deal with the

crimes. Minors should not receive this penalization, and the opposition, believe that

there is no other alternative factor, it is very cruel. Children are not mature adults and

should not be seen or punished as an equal to an adult who has better judgment skills.


Utilitarian’s view this penalty as regarding people in a bad manner, by taking away their

life including capital punishment and imprisonment. Humans will sustain thus will be by

penalizing someone the person may seem unhappy, obviously; opposition may appear.

Utilitarian theory states that the amount of suffering outweighs the benefits of the

penalty where absolution occurs, and cannot be accounted for in any other way.

(Rachels, and Rachels 145-136) Kant on the other hand says the punishment must fit the

crime, and that for murderer capital punishment is the only alternative. Also anyone

associated with murder and murder only should want to be put to death. A society that

wouldn’t want a murderer to be put to death would also be classified as the accomplice,

but only if the person commits the crime. If the person does not commit the crime then

death does not apply. (Rachels, and Rachels 145-136)

To salvage innocent life, thereby, and advocates assure that by executing liquidators it

forecloses them from murdering again. Supporter say that it has been proven that

criminals that have been released on parole who commit violent crimes again including

and subject to murder. They also argue that liquidators have so violated the human

rights of their victims and that they never get that chance to do so ever again. It is

apparent that those put to death cannot ever harm or murder again. Murder, when it is

simply a valid penalty and in addition, many capital penalization partisans have a

difference of opinion that, people associate capital punishment with murder. (Montaldo)

Opponents of the death penalty say that if two crimes have the same end that they are

morally associated. Well, contrary to popular belief, no human in their right mind would

see abducting and legal captivity as the same, so, why would they see murder and

working capital penalization at the same level. Opponents are right when they say that

non supporters see other alternatives to the death penalty. Also non supporters say

that this justice goes against the American way. The justice system penalizes according

to the degree of blameworthiness, and according to the degree of blameworthiness

does the justice system see capital punishment appropriate. (Millet) Resisters argue the
decrease in penalization argumentation that adolescence is a transitional period of life

when cognitive abilities, emotions, judgment, impulse control, they cannot see the future

of their actions are still in the puberty stages of life and due to not enough maturity.

Many areas such as urge control scientific, psychological research has illustrated that

an adolescent are still developing. Adolescence in their personal identity development,

understanding, emotions, and assecment of risk, consequences, and appraisal lay on

the line they are less advanced than adults. (Cothern 16-1)

Factors such as appearance, behavior and the way adolescence thinks are all crucial in

determining a capital punishment case. Oppositions also state that how could a juvenile

stand up to the same standards as adults when they are juvenile or under the legal age

limit. Juveniles cannot describe to a person why they have murdered because they

have limited or very little moral aspects or reasoning abilities. Attempting to mature

intellectually and struggling to find their identity. The court is responsible, and the United

Nations Standard Rules for the administration of Juvenile Justice to determine the

advancement level before they give the verdict of death. (Montaldo) Getting into a bar,

buying cigarettes or alcohol is all illegal until the age of 21. Yet the supporters say they

are legal enough to receive the death penalty. Why does society have ordinances

proposing it is extremely pertinent, if adulthood was not relevant to deciding

sentencing? (Montaldo) Society has the right to protect everyone from people who are

dangerous and preserve the obligation admittedly, and find it senseless to execute the

juveniles to attain this. The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty or NCADP is

one of the largest groups that has been put together to get rid of the death penalty. The

group was put together by Henry Swartzchild in 1976 the year that capital punishment

was brought back. It is completely dedicated to getting rid of the death penalty once and

for all. The NCADP also includes a large gathering of information such as inmates

currently on death row, past executions, population and current states practicing capital

punishment. Principles and tactics of the group are provided. Having saved two

adolescent murder suspects from capital punishment the group in 1997 proposed the

“Stop killing the kids Campaign” The group conjured up a substantial amount of funding,

which enlightened the communities across America. (Langly)

The death penalty application and the U.S. justice system have constant problems; this

is why it is appropriate to administer other alternatives of justice. Such options are

imprisonment for life without parole. (Millet) This option costs much less than capital

penalization, and keeps the criminal in prison for the remainder of his life. Force

captives to pay for their captivities, by putting them to work and having them pay the

families of their victims. Another option is reform or reformatories, inmates instead of

just penalizing them as they would in prisons solve moral, physical, and mental issues

for fellow inmates. The court system would put the juveniles to work for the community

so they themselves could learn to live in the community. This could also benefit older

inmates. (Millet) Since the preexistence of the death penalty in 1976 18 kids under the

age of 18 have been terminated. Is this acceptable in a sophisticated society such as

ours? Rehabilitation for juvenile offenders is far more suitable than keeping the juvenile

in prison for 10 plus years and then terminating them. Juveniles should not have to pay

with their lives for doing stupid things. The United States does not have the right to

speak about the rights of humans when they don’t feel that it is wrong to terminate

juvenile offenders, when better options are available. (Millet)

The cost of the death penalty has no economic stability, it even threatens to bankrupt

cities, and taxpayers take the heat. Legal fees for the death penalty are about 2 million

dollars, 4 times higher than other murder trials. Appeals cost around 700,000, about 1.2

million in execution costs. (Millet) Thirty states do not support the juvenile death penalty,

this includes 12 that have rejected it altogether and 18 that keep it alive but, only when

the judicial system has determined it, excluding juveniles from it. There are twenty

states without a formal prohibition, where the death penalty of juveniles is hardly

practiced. (Cothern 16-1) Although, by similarities to Atkins vs. Virginia where the

person (Atkins) convicted was mentally retarded, reducing the speed at which the

incidence of the juvenile death penalty. Executing the mentally ill under the Supreme

Court breached the Eighth and 14th Amendment constraints on cruel and unusual

punishment, because a majority of Americans found it cruel and unusual. Stanford Vs.

Kentucky - Seventeen year old, Stanford was convicted by a Kentucky jury of murder,

and robbery, and the taking in of stolen property. Stanford was sentenced to death

under a state statute which permitted juvenile offenders to receive the death penalty for

highly ranked felonies. Stanford appealed his sentence and his case was consolidated

with that of Wilkins v. Missouri. Kentucky did not see anything wrong with executing

minor and relied on the state to verify the way they felt about this particular case. So in

a 5-to-4 decision the Court tried to decide whether it was morally right to try a juvenile

an adult. American society does not dictate a nationwide census regarding the

imposition of capital punishments on 16 or 17-year old juveniles. (Montaldo) Finally the

Missouri court produced many laws that passed since 1989 that limited the

interpretation of the death penalty and with that the overall opinion had changed.

Simmons vs. Roper (2004) – Broke into Shirley Crooks home with accomplices, the

suspects then robbed and killed Ms. Cooks and through the body over the Meramec

bridge in St. Louis County, into the river. Christopher Simmons was then sentenced to

be executed in 1993, when he was only 17. A series of court appeals to state and

federal courts took place until 2002, but each appeal was denied. Then, in 2002, the

Missouri Supreme Court pardoned Simmons’s execution while the U.S. Supreme Court

and the Missouri Supreme Court decided to rethink the Simmons case. (Montaldo) A lot

of the litigation was based off of the past case Atkins Vs.Virgina. The U.S. Supreme

Court later voted 5-4 in favor to do away with the death penalty for minors who

committed the crime of murder less than 18 years of age in 2005, calling the execution

of minors not a good practice of the United States. (Montaldo)

Mark Kibler

Works Cited

Millet, Frederick. "End the Death Penalty Now." ACLU, 11/04/2004. Web. 18 Jun
2010. <>. (Millet)

Langly, Scott. "National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty." National

Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. N.P., 2010. Web. 1 Jul 2010.
<>. (Langly)

Montaldo, Charles. "Death Penalty for Juveniles." Crime/Punishment., n.d. Web. 18 Jun 2010.
<>. (Montaldo)

Cothern, Lynn. "Juveniles and the Death Penalty." Coordination Council on

Juvenile Justice and the Death Penalty (2000): 16-1. Web. 18 Jun 2010.
(Cothern 16-1)

Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 6th.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2010. (Rachels, and Rachels 145-136)