Do you think that it is cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles to get the death penalty?

Question

Please explain your answers! Thank you!

Answer 1

It really doesn't matter what any of us think. A juvenile and the mentally handicapped cannot be given the death penalty by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The only way a juvenile can even be exposed to the death penalty is if he/she was tried as an adult.

Answer 2

While the US Supreme Court has indeed declared that the execution of individuals who comitted their crime before the age of 18, that does not answer the questioner's query. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. __ (2005) is the law, but more important is the rationale.

As a medical matter, if we are dealing with the question of whether a minor has the developed brain to hold him or her legally responsible for criminal acts warranting the penalty of death, i think the answer is no. Everyone talks about how teenagers should know the consequences of their actions, know better, be responsible, etc, but the medical truth is that the human brain is not fully developed and able to make full evaluation of the consequences of actions until late in the 20's. If the idea is that we punish behavior ecause the punished should "know better," medicine disagrees with us there.

If we are dealing with the broader legal matter as participants in the international community, there is a worldwide consensus that execution of minors (those under the age of 18) is an unconscionable act, which no other western country participated in, save the US before 2005. Of course, this also leads to the other internaitonal fact, which is that few countries in the world support capital punishment at all.

As a constitutional matter, the founders know of and did not prohibit a penalty of death, but rather prohibited merely "cruel and unusual punishment" of which death was not included. Indeed, death was specifically permitted at the founding of the country, so long as one received a fair and impartial hearing (due process). Of course, the problem today is not in the act of killing, though some argue that the methods are in fact cruel and unusual, but in the "fairness" of how we determine who dies, irrespective of their age.

Answer 3

Your question is now irrelevant.It no longer matters what you or I or the US Congress or any state thinks . The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on any juvenile for any crime whatsoever.

NPR.org, March 2, 2005 · The Supreme Court on Tuesday abolished the death penalty for convicted killers who committed their crimes before the age of 18. The court ruling, closely divided at 5-to-4, affects 72 people in 20 states. The practice will also be banned for any future crimes.

Executions for those 15 and younger when they committed their crimes were outlawed in 1988. Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.

The executions, the court said, violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

Juveniles on Death Row
Currently, 72 inmates on death rows were juveniles when they committed their crimes, according to the Death Penalty Information Center:

. Texas: 29
. Alabama: 14
. Mississippi: 5
. Arizona, Louisiana, North Carolina: 4 each
. Florida, South Carolina: 3 each
. Georgia, Pennsylvania: 2 each
. Nevada, Virginia: 1

Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Utah allow the execution of juveniles but do not have any on their
death rows.

Source: AP

Answer 4

I think it's cruel and unusual punishment for anyone to get the death penalty.

Answer 5

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who committed his crime at age less than 18. Wisely. We don't let people under 18 vote, buy alcohol, serve on a jury, serve in the military, buy tobacco etc.

Answer 6

I don't think juveniles can receive the death penalty under any circumstance. Worst case scenario they would wait until the individual is 18.

Answer 7

i personally think the death penatly is a good thing. however, administering it to a minor might be a stretch for me. it wouldnt be cruel just a little odd. now if 2 17 year olds were street racing and killed some person, i might consider it... but it would still be a stretch. in short, generally- no spacial occasions- id consider it.

Answer 8

YES, it is; adolescents' brains are still developing the judgement part, so they tend to do pretty stupid things (drinking and driving, drugs, sex, street racing, cutting school, etc.) and they shouldn't be killed for something like that (unless they accidentally kill themselves. Then they have no choice.) Life is too precious and Death is too powerful to be wielded like that.

Answer 9

What would it change?It wouldn't bring back the dead.Besides that,it is society's way of saying we have failed.We couldn't correct bad behaviour.Remember they are someones baby.

Answer 10

NO!!!! They did the crime ,They pay the time or life forfeture for taking a life