Juvenile death penalty revisited
A comment to my last post regarding the Supreme Court's abolishment of the death penalty for juveniles has prompted me to express my opinion on the subject further.
Steven commented: "So a 17 year old psychopath who slaughters people in cold blood is somehow less worthy of death than an 18 or 19 year old psychopath? I must say I don't get it. Evil is as evil does. It knows no age."
I do not disagree with what Steven says. I agree - evil knows no age, indeed. However, I do believe that there must be a cut-off age for juvenile executions, and 18 is that age of majority in our society (minus the drinking laws, I know).
Executing a juvenile is more inhumane and cruel than executing an adult. I am personally opposed to the death penalty in general, but I have been adamantly opposed to imposing the death penalty for those under 18 because of my belief that there must be some consideration given to the impulse-driven brain of a teenager that is not fully developed. Now, saying that - I do agree that some 17-year-old criminals are no different than their 18- or 19-year-old counterparts. And certainly, most of the death penalty crimes that teens commit are absolutely no less heinous than those of the adults. Evil is evil, and a psychopath is a psychopath. I do not believe that imposing death on teenagers is appropriate, regardless of the nature of their crime. I am not saying that these teens shouldn't be held completely responsible for their crimes. A 17-year-old who kidnaps, rapes and murders a child is just as guilty of the crime as an adult. But if we really want to punish them, deter them, not allow them to re-offend, send them to prison. Life in prison, sure. Life in maximum-security, hard-time, no-extra-perk prisons, maybe. Death, no.
My general opposition to the death penalty is very different than my specific opposition to juvenile executions in this regard: I can see the other side of the death penalty issue. I respect the belief that the death penalty is a just punishment and a valuable deterrent for crime. I do not agree for many reasons, but I think that there are valid arguments to be made for both sides. Executing juveniles, however, is a completely different issue - it has to do with an extreme societal response to an increase in and severity of juvenile crime. As teenage crime has intensified and become more heinous, the death penalty has been considered and imposed more often. Using the death penalty to deter and punish teenagers is trying to fix the problem from the wrong end. The pervasiveness of juveniles committing capital crimes has more to do with societal trends than we care to admit. I submit that our society's increase in child abuse, drug abuse, divorce rates, wide-spread violence in media and entertainment, absent parents, etc. has had at least some effect on juvenile crime rates. Don't misunderstand - I am not excusing teenagers for what they might do. They are culpable for their crimes. But there must be a cut-off point at which we are not willing to execute our society's children.
I realize the problems with teenage crime is huge. I just don't believe one of the answers should be to kill them.
Steven commented: "So a 17 year old psychopath who slaughters people in cold blood is somehow less worthy of death than an 18 or 19 year old psychopath? I must say I don't get it. Evil is as evil does. It knows no age."
I do not disagree with what Steven says. I agree - evil knows no age, indeed. However, I do believe that there must be a cut-off age for juvenile executions, and 18 is that age of majority in our society (minus the drinking laws, I know).
Executing a juvenile is more inhumane and cruel than executing an adult. I am personally opposed to the death penalty in general, but I have been adamantly opposed to imposing the death penalty for those under 18 because of my belief that there must be some consideration given to the impulse-driven brain of a teenager that is not fully developed. Now, saying that - I do agree that some 17-year-old criminals are no different than their 18- or 19-year-old counterparts. And certainly, most of the death penalty crimes that teens commit are absolutely no less heinous than those of the adults. Evil is evil, and a psychopath is a psychopath. I do not believe that imposing death on teenagers is appropriate, regardless of the nature of their crime. I am not saying that these teens shouldn't be held completely responsible for their crimes. A 17-year-old who kidnaps, rapes and murders a child is just as guilty of the crime as an adult. But if we really want to punish them, deter them, not allow them to re-offend, send them to prison. Life in prison, sure. Life in maximum-security, hard-time, no-extra-perk prisons, maybe. Death, no.
My general opposition to the death penalty is very different than my specific opposition to juvenile executions in this regard: I can see the other side of the death penalty issue. I respect the belief that the death penalty is a just punishment and a valuable deterrent for crime. I do not agree for many reasons, but I think that there are valid arguments to be made for both sides. Executing juveniles, however, is a completely different issue - it has to do with an extreme societal response to an increase in and severity of juvenile crime. As teenage crime has intensified and become more heinous, the death penalty has been considered and imposed more often. Using the death penalty to deter and punish teenagers is trying to fix the problem from the wrong end. The pervasiveness of juveniles committing capital crimes has more to do with societal trends than we care to admit. I submit that our society's increase in child abuse, drug abuse, divorce rates, wide-spread violence in media and entertainment, absent parents, etc. has had at least some effect on juvenile crime rates. Don't misunderstand - I am not excusing teenagers for what they might do. They are culpable for their crimes. But there must be a cut-off point at which we are not willing to execute our society's children.
I realize the problems with teenage crime is huge. I just don't believe one of the answers should be to kill them.
posted by Amanda at 3:38 PM
<< Home