Juvenile Death Penalty?

. . . And Justice for All, We Hope

It is necessary that I begin this essay by stating my personal beliefs concerning the death penalty. Fundamentally, I am not opposed to the death penalty for the most violent of offenders. I believe that, if a person, such as a serial killer, admits to committing heinous murders, and law enforcement has the evidence supporting the murderer's confession beyond a reasonable doubt in a juries collective mind, I do not have a problem with the use of the death penalty. Yet, when I consider that there is the slightest possibility that even one innocent person could be executed mistakenly, I am forced to admit that the death penalty is unjust and potentially cruel for adults, as well as juveniles. I think that murderers, whether adult or juvenile, are both dangerous and, to different degrees, mentally disturbed. Both have proved that they lack the self control to remain in society. Yet, juveniles have not developed mentally enough to be considered the same as their adult counterparts.

In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for juveniles under the age of eighteen at the time of committing the crime was "a violation of the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment." Researchers and authors, Regoli and Hewitt (2006), mention three "differences between adults and juveniles" that helped to bring the Court to their decision: "juveniles lack maturity and responsibility", they "are more vulnerable to outside influences", and their "character is not as fully formed as that of an adult." I agree with this decision. Juveniles are not completely developed mentally, nor should they be considered "adults" at this age. The effect of "outside influences" should be apparent to anyone remembering their adolescent years, when, lacking the establishment of personal values, we all have done things that we would not have done without the pressure of our peers and negative role models. We, as individuals, are unique, thus, we all develop mentally, and physically, at different rates and to varying degrees of ability. Seemingly, this incomplete developmental stage of juveniles led the Supreme Court to voice its opinion "that juvenile murderers could be rehabilitated." Yet, is this true?

Regoli and Hewitt admit that "we have not obtained the knowledge we need to design, or even agree on, effective methods of reforming individuals." It is possible that certain juveniles could be rehabilitated after murdering, though, the previous admission makes it seem unlikely. Sentences of life without parole seem appropriate for juveniles who commit heinous murders because we can not reliably rehabilitate them at this time. Additionally, this life sentence can, at anytime, be changed by a judge. It is possible that the future will bring new technology or theories that facilitate the rehabilitation of adult and juvenile "lifers". For now, though, we must maintain our safety by locking murderers, of any age, safely away.