Supreme Court Has Recently Ruled

¶ … Supreme Court has recently ruled that people who commit crimes that would otherwise qualify for a death sentence will not be eligible if they committed the crime before their 18th birthday. This is based on knowledge about the psychology of adolescents. The Court judged that youth under the age of 18 did not think about personal actions in the same way adults do, justifying their decision. It is an interesting turn of events, because our policies toward juvenile offenders have swung between taking a punishment approach and taking a rehabilitative approach (Howard, 1998).

The "psychological immaturity" argument seems to make sense. We deny the right to vote until the age of 18, and youths cannot drink legally for three years after that. In many states, it's illegal for them to buy cigarettes (Steiner, 2002), so the argument that they can't be held completely responsible for even heinous crimes makes some sense. On the other hand, we all know instances where teenagers have made some poor choices but have made good choices when the issues were very serious. For instance, many teens try alcohol before they are 18, but few stage armed holdups of liquor stores to get the alcohol. The great majority can set boundaries on their behavior.

However, when adolescents do commit a serious crime, it could be argued that their youth means that they might be better candidates for rehabilitation than hardened criminals. In addition, the research shows that a high number of juvenile offenders have very serious psychological disorders. This study showed that from a large group of juvenile delinquents, 25% met the diagnostic standards for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and another 42% met the criteria partially. The most common cause was either witnessing violence or being the victim of violence. The PTSD was often accompanied by other psychological disorders as well. This suggests that many juvenile offenders have to contend not only with impulse control but with serious emotional problems as well. These could be considered mitigating psychological factors. It also supports the argument that extra efforts at remediation that might not be appropriate with hardened criminals might be appropriate for younger offenders.

While youthful offenders will no longer be sentenced to death, the courts have not had their hands completely tied. They can still be tried as adults, and even a very young offender can be sentenced to life without possibility of parole (Fresno Bee, 2005). Meanwhile, it might help to keep juvenile crime in perspective. While the media sometimes make it sound as if juvenile crime is a major problem, 92% of all homicide arrests come from four major cities: Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and New York. Juvenile homicide is not common in most parts of the country (Howard, 1998). In addition, overall, juvenile crime of all kinds has decreased between 1972 and 1995, during a period of time when juvenile policies tended to be more lenient (Howard, 1998). It stands to reason that youth who do not think before they act will not consider punishment before they commit a crime; "getting tough on crime" may make no difference to immature individuals.