Death Penalty for Juvenile Offenders: Agree or Disagree?

[stormie_skies]

This is a topic that the USSC will be reviewing this term, and I havent seen it here yet. I will post an editorial from this mornings Washington Post to get us started - it mentions some important facts, and I agree with their conclusion.

THE SUPREME COURT has an opportunity this term to correct one of the uglier mistakes of its recent history: its 1989 decision upholding the death penalty for juveniles. Yesterday the court held oral arguments in a case that asks whether it will continue to stand behind that ruling. It shouldn't. The Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments." Executing people for crimes committed when they were 16 and 17 is certainly cruel -- a barbaric mistreatment of children, whom the state has a duty to protect. It is also unusual, even more so now than when the court last considered the matter. Even for those who favor the death penalty, killing juvenile offenders should be beyond the constitutional pale.

Formally, 19 states still permit the execution of juvenile offenders. In practice, however, the juvenile death penalty is far more contained than that. Of the 22 juvenile convicts executed since the death penalty's reinstatement, almost 60 percent were put to death in Texas. Only seven states have executed juvenile offenders, and in the past 10 years, only three states -- Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia -- have done so. What's more, since the court's 1989 decision, several more states have set the minimum age for death penalty eligibility at 18, as has the federal government. Juries are increasingly reluctant to impose the death penalty on those who were children when they committed their crimes. And while overseas practice shouldn't bind American constitutional law, it is worth noting the company this country has to keep in subjecting juveniles to capital punishment: China, Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The practice simply no longer exists among democratic nations.

Abolishing the juvenile death penalty will not dramatically alter the debate over capital punishment in this country. It will, however, bring to bear against a few outlying states the powerful national consensus that children -- even when they do terrible things -- are different from adults. Insulating them from the ultimate punishment should not be a tough call.

Opinions, anyone?

I think the company we keep in continuing this practice says more than I ever could....

[tronbunny]

I'm for the death penalty.
It is tragic that some innocents will be put to death, but that is the price that is paid for such a deterrent.
It may not be a huge deterrent, but I'll be darned if I'm gonna pay for the upkeep of a human body that doesn't deserve to be cared for.
As for the juvenile... most people under the age of 21 are incapable of making any major decision with any sort of maturity.
Juveniles, in general are too inexperienced to truly understand the consequences of their actions. There are others that will never be able to.

[stormie_skies]

Thank you for the response. I really thought this topic belonged on the political board, but it is apparent that others thought differently...

I, personally, am against the death penalty in all situations. It has never been proven to deter anyone from committing crime. It costs more than life imprisonment. It is clearly unfairly applied. And most importantly, it is irreversable.

The situation with juveniles should clearly be different, IMO, even for people who support the death penalty. We, as a society, accept the fact that young people do not grasp many things in life. Thats why we dont allow them to vote, marry, drink etc. So how can we honestly tell ourselves that they grasp the concept of dying as a penalty or for any reason? Thats something many adults have issues dealing with...

[CaptinCrunch]

Only in extreme situations

[AussieMark]

when u say Juvenile do u mean people under the age of 18.

if that is the case I say NO

[Ixolib]

I guess in my viewpoint, I'm not usually in favor of the death penelty because I don't think it has the deterent factor it's intended to. If that's the reason for its existence, I'd say no. If it's for reasons of an eye-for-an-eye, then perhaps that might cause a different response. I just don't believe the death penelty causes criminals to think twice if they are intent on committing an offense with this penelty as the potential end result.

[stormie_skies]

when u say Juvenile do u mean people under the age of 18.

if that is the case I say NO

This case deals with someone who was I believe 16 years old when they committed the crime they are being executed for.

[Guest]

Only in VERY extreme cases should a juvenile defender even be considered for the death penalty for crimes committed DURING those juvenile years. I do not agree that juveniles should be put to death while they are minors.

However, when the juvenile becomes an adult, though, prosecuters/juries/judges should review the cases and make a determination of whether to upgrade to a death penalty.

[Derek Ortt]

for treason, the punishment should be death, regardless as to the age of the traitor

[SouthernWx]

Only in extreme situations.

[Brent]

Under 18? No.

[stormie_skies]

Im pleased to see the overwhelmingly negative response to this subject - perhaps this is one thing on which many of us from both parties can agree!

[streetsoldier]

They do the deed...I trust we are speaking about murder here? Let them take the same risks, and sentencing.

FI, I SERIOUSLY doubt that anyone would have given Klebold and Harris "life", when they took 13 lives back on 20 April, 1999.

[OklahomaWeather]

Good point streetsoldier. They knew exactly what they were doing and the consequences...