Supreme Court finally abolishes death penalty for juveniles

In the 1989 case Stanford v. Kentucky, the justices of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty for juveniles older than 15 years of age. On Tuesday, March 1, in a 5 to 4 decision in Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court overturned its earlier ruling, abolishing the death penalty for juveniles who committed crimes when they were younger than 18. This decision should have been made three years ago, when instead of acknowledging that juvenile executions have long ceased to adhere to "evolving standards of decency," the Court rejected appeals from juveniles under 18 even though it banned execution for mentally retarded persons. Not only was it an outdated, distasteful practice, but it was one on which the United States stood alone.

Juvenile offenders are not considered responsible or reasonable enough to be given the same rights as adults when it comes to issues such as voting, marriage, military involvement, smoking, drinking and a myriad of other rights that only those over 18 are entitled to. The juvenile death penalty reflects hypocritically on society's conviction that juveniles under 18 cannot think for themselves – if teens are not held responsible enough to deal with issues such as alcohol consumption or jury duty, they should not be held to a death penalty instituted for adults who do have these rights.

According to studies conducted by Harvard Medical School, the National Institute of Mental Health and the University of California's Department of Neuroscience, the frontal and pre-frontal lobes of the brain, which regulate impulse control and judgment, are incompletely developed in teenagers and do not fully mature until the early 20s. Teens often think in the moment without regard to the consequences of their actions, a tendency that apparently is out of their control. The ruling in Atkins v. Virginia in 2002, which abolished the death penalty for mentally retarded persons, was made on the basis that it is "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute a killer who unable to realize the gravity of the situation. The same circumstances apply for juvenile offenders here. In fact, according to the American Bar Association (ABA), 43 percent of death row juveniles were diagnosed with a mental health disorder. Way to be consistent.

Not only is subjecting juveniles to capital punishment morally reprehensible, but capital punishment fails to live up to its intent. The essential purpose of the death penalty was to serve as a deterrent to other criminals. However, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a majority of criminologists agree that it fails in this regard. According to a statistical study by John Lamperti, a Professor of Mathematics at Dartmouth College, "executions have no discernible effect on homicide death rates." Indeed, as early as 1972, Justice Thurgood Marshall stated in the Court ruling in Furman v. Georgia that "In light of the massive amount of evidence before us, I see no alternative but to conclude that capital punishment cannot be justified on the basis of its deterrent effect." If the death penalty, especially as it applies to juveniles, does not fulfill its intent, there is no purpose to its prolonged existence.

The goal of the death penalty is also to give the harshest punishment to the worst offender, but juveniles are not the worst of the worst. They are the most capable of rehabilitation because they are at an age when their brains, morals and opinions are still malleable. Death is the ultimate punishment, worse than life in prison because it dissolves all hope of repentance and treatment. Supporters of juvenile capital punishment may argue that it's a waste of time and money to keep juveniles, or any other capital offenders, in jail for life, but moral decency dictates that society attempt to reform these criminals and enable them to live with themselves. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion from the court, "From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed." In addition, it turns out that capital punishment costs more than life without parole. According to U.S. studies cited by the International Debate Education Association (IDEA), anywhere from $1 million to $7 million are spent on capital cases, from arrest to execution, while an average of only $500,000 is spent on cases ending in life without parole. Besides, perhaps the prospect of spending a lifetime stewing over their actions will serve as a greater deterrent for would-be teen offenders.

Unfortunately, the key factor in the Supreme Court's decision was international opinion above all else. Until March 1, the United States was one of a handful of countries to enforce a death penalty for juveniles. Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia have also executed juveniles in recent years, but they have since signed international agreements prohibiting such practices. After years of haranguing other countries for their lagging human rights standards, the U.S. finally succumbed to international consensus, among other factors, and ruled in favor of abolishing juvenile execution. However, the court's refusal to admit its mistake in 1989 and its firm conviction that the ruling is based on "evolving standards of decency" that did not apply 16 years ago is disheartening.

The Supreme Court made a landmark decision last Tuesday, acknowledging the unconstitutionality of juvenile executions and taking a step towards preventing them. As far as moral standards go, the abolition of the death penalty for juveniles under 18 was long overdue.