The death penalty for juveniles

Death Penalty for Juveniles

The Supreme Court recently ruled that using the death sentence on people who were younger than 18 when they committed their crimes amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. This means that 19 states will have to change their standards for when the death penalty can be used (Yen, PAGE). For the reasons I will give below, I believe this was a decision whose time has come. Previous rulings had protected those below the age of 16 from the death penalty.

The list of countries allowing the death penalty in those under the age of 18 had shrunk considerably by the time our country came do this decision. In recent years, only Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia in addition to us had allowed executions for criminals under the age of 18 when the crime or crimes were committed (Yen, PAGE), suggesting that the practice was not endorsed by the great majority of first-world countries. It seems to be the right call for the United States for several reasons.

First of all, it is an odd juxtaposition of beliefs about young people if we consider them too young to vote responsibly, too young to drink alcohol or even smoke, but mature enough to carefully consider the consequences of criminal acts. Psychologists in fact confirmed that the decision-making parts of the brain are not fully developed before the age of 18, a fact that guided five out of the nine Supreme Court judges when making this decision (Yen, PAGE). However, teens can show enough bravado to suggest they have such decision-making abilities, and lead juries to believe that they should be treated as adults (Liptak, 2005).

Second, the strongest argument in favor of the death penalty - that it deters the commission of crimes where the death penalty might be used - does not completely apply to teens if the psychological research is sound. Supporters of the death penalty argue that the declining number of teen executions proves that deterrence works (Liptak, 2005), but for this to be true, teens would have to show the ability to weigh the consequences of their actions carefully before acting. The research shown to the Supreme Court suggests just the opposite about them (Liptak, 2005).

Third, evidence shows that many teens in jail for serious crimes have significant mental health problems. Representative Henry Waxman (D) of California noted that in his state, one of the most populous in the country, there is little competent psychiatric help for youthful offenders who are incarcerated. He and his staff found that hundreds of teens held in California services were not getting the mental health services they desperately needed (Author not stated, 2005). 70% made suicide attempts while incarcerated, and nearly 75% attacked others (Author not stated, 2005). In spite of such clear evidence of instability, nearly six out of ten California facilities lacked staff with mental health training. Youthful offenders, meanwhile, had a wide range of diagnoses including not only substance abuse but AD/HD, retardation and learning disabilities (Author not stated, 2005). These are all conditions where competent mental health staff could help the young people so that when they were freed they would be less likely to offend again, but the staff isn't there. Instead, California has a growing population of incarcerated teens who desperately need psychiatric help but who will not get it even though their difficulties have contributed to the commission of serious crimes.