Free Paper Sample on Juvenile Offenders Should not Face the Death Penalty

Introduction

In the current justice system, there is heated discussion on weather juvenile offenders have to face death as a penalty when they commit capital crimes. Since 1973, there was a rise in the number of juveniles’ sentences to death in the United States of America (USA). A total of 228 children have been sentenced to the course, and 21 have already been executed (Merlo & Benekos, 2017). Debates surrounding the topic concern views of scientific, religious, and criminal system experts. Another group of experts also argue in support of the need to expose juveniles to capital punishment. Despite the varied opinions, a critical analysis of the presentations of the different groups indicates the need to exclude the juveniles from capital punishment. This paper seeks to verify why justice systems need to exempt juveniles from capital punishment by critically reviewing the existing opinions from different experts.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Support Arguments

Their Brains Are Underdeveloped

The USA laws assume that any person aged below 18 years lacks the legal capacity to make sound decisions. Christian views present similar assumptions. Although the bible encourages parents to punish their children as a way of showing them good from wrong, it insists on using moderate means (Colossians 2:20-22). Paul says that moralism always involves mistrusts, and obedience is never enough in the children; hence guardians should always maintain it in their children. Despite the immature state of their children, good Christians should not leave children unprotected to fall prey for the evil that goes their way. The Christians should discourage the children from doing wrong by advising them in the right ways instead of continually haranguing them about their faults. Scientifically, the rapidly advancing technology in research has increased knowledge about the differences in brain development in children and adults. Graber (2019) indicated that in children below twenty years, the part of their brains that govern judgment, reasoning, and impulse control, the pre-frontal cortex, is still underdeveloped. This revelation implies that although adolescents may be capable in other areas, they cannot reason or control their behavior like adults (Cauffman et al., 2018). These three perspectives disqualify holding juveniles to the same level of liability as adults.

Juveniles Are Susceptible to Negative Influence

Another concrete reason for the exclusion of the juveniles is their susceptibility to negative influences. As Stevenson (2017) indicated, the execution of eighteen- to twenty-year-old criminals constitutes unrealistic punishment. Recent scientific research showed that teens just below twenty share many of the same mitigating characteristics as juveniles (Cauffman et al., 2018). This group is remarkably predisposed to psychological dependence behaviors like reckless, and they are prone to peer pressure, falling victims of the negative influences. These momentary tendencies weaken their culpability and disprove the traditional justification of the death penalty that serves as the anchorage for retribution and deterrence. In 2 Chronicles 30:9, the bible appreciates the role of influence on children. The verse designates that the move by guardians returning to the Lord makes their children find consideration and return in the ways of God. This statement implies that most of the crimes that the juveniles commit are due to the negative influence they obtained from their peers and mentors. The agreement of the biblical and the scientific points of view make it necessary to reconsider juvenile sentencing delinquents to death.

Juveniles Are Malleable to Be Deserving of the Death Penalty

An appropriate justice system expects courts to consider the ability of an individual to manage a ruling before making a judgment. Juveniles are a young lot, and the appropriate ruling can even make them reconsider their approach to life (Michaels, 2016). The primary purpose of a sound criminal justice system is to correct and guide people towards activities that ensure the safety of other people or the environment, rather than punishing the perpetrators (Stevenson, 2017)). As mentioned earlier, children easily copy other people's lives and can also quickly adapt the guidance from the parents. Thus, if guardians appropriately nature their children, the incidences of juvenile offenses will dramatically reduce. Michaels (2016) identified some of the appropriate approaches revolving around the right environment that does not have fights, sibling rivalry, divorce social milieu like street fights, and maintain a good peer. Various verses in the bible confirm the ease of correcting and teaching children. Hebrews 12:10 indicates that part of growing in godliness is developing godly character. According to the book, God expects parents to train their children, teach them about moral purity, and deal with trials. The reliance of God to the children indicate His trust in the ability of children to learn. All these three perspectives- the criminal system, scientific approaches, and the biblical perspectives- appreciate that children can change. Instead of sentencing juveniles to death, the justice system should engage the use of the guidance in the effort of correcting them.

Counter Arguments

As a Way of Deterring Against Similar Crimes

The proponents of sentencing juveniles to capital punishment relies on the need to deter other society members from the same crime. Capital punishment (n.d.) indicated that the death penalty serves as an appropriate sanction for the commission of certain serious crimes, and a way to maintain public safety. The website indicated to affect the lesson on potential perpetrators. There is a need for the immediate imposition of the penalty when one has committed a severe crime and immediate execution of the criminals. To make an analogy, other children would learn the severity of committing similar crimes as the impacts are instant and dire. Another argument in favor of the death penalty stipulates that when the executions are painful, humiliating, and public, they create a sense of horror that prevents others from attempting to repeat in the crimes (Michaels, 2016). The author disregards the relatively painless and private administration of the death, and argue that by executing murderers, the system helps the society in eliminating a bunch of future murderers (Michaels, 2016). The need to deter potential perpetrators from repeating a crime quality the use of capital punishment on juveniles.

Retribution

Proponents of the punishment argue that the death penalty is vital in preserving law and order and costs less than life imprisonment. The basic argument for retribution and punishment is that all guilty people have to be punished. The measure of the punishment should be proportional to the severity of their crime. According to Merlo and Benekos (2017), real justice requires people to suffer for their wrongdoing, and in a way comparable with their crimes. Since the argument wants each criminal to get what their crime attracts, the only comparable punishment for a murderer would be death. The measure of punishment in a given scenario should depend on the severity of the crime, the delinquent's behavior, and the vulnerable and unprotected circumstance of the victim (Merlo & Benekos, 2017). The imposition of the appropriate penalty is the best approach courts respond to the society's call for justice against the convicts since justice demands that courts should enforce punishment that befits the crime.” Retribution works on the principle of “an eye for an eye” to honor the victim, help comfort grieving families, and prevent the perpetrators from repeating the crime in the future.

The Weakness of the Counterarguments

As a Way of Deterring Against Similar Crimes

A review of the argument that death sentencing acts as a way of deterring against similar crimes exposes some weaknesses. Capital punishment (n.d.) explained the following points as the weaknesses of capital punishment in deterring people from the crimes. First, there is no statistical evidence that confirms how the death penalty deters other people from committing the same crime. Secondly, some of the victims of the death penalty may be having a psychological problem. Such a problem makes a person incapable of being deterred from a similar type of crime even if they faced the possibility of death in their life endeavors. Thirdly, in some cases, people commit capital crimes while in an emotional state that hinders the perpetrators from thinking about the possible consequences. Also, the primary role of criminal penalties is to rehabilitate offenders. Holding this in its values makes no sense to kill the victims intentionally. Sentencing a person with the death penalty thus does not help in deterring the person from crime. Instead, sentencing the criminals to longer jail terms allows them to discourage other people from committing crimes upon their release (Merlo & Benekos, 2017).

Retribution

The use of the death penalty as a means of retribution also has its weaknesses. A review of the basis of capital punishment proves that the punishment premises on the need to make the minds feel a punishment corresponding to the crime. This premise is revenge, but not justice, and paints the concept as vengeance but not retribution, yet vengeance is a morally dubious idea ("Capital punishment, "n.d.). Secondly, sometimes, the courts may put the criminal on death row for many years. The resulting anticipatory suffering makes the punishment not only life depriving but also the criminal of life. The suffering breaks the principle of an eye for an eye. Although such cases are common in the USA, the delay is not an inherent capital punishment feature. Some countries execute people within days of sentencing them to death. Lastly, almost everyone believes that killing is wrong, regardless of who is to die, it caused the death of another person. Thus, it is meaningless to kill someone through the death penalty to see that killing is wrong (Merlo & Benekos, 2017).

Conclusion

Juvenile offenders should be exempted from the death penalty. As seen in the discussion text, several arguments justify the need to exclude juveniles from the death penalty. Although some people based on discernment and retribution as reasons for sentencing the juveniles to death, the former lacks scientific proof. At the same time, the latter only acts as vengeance instead of a correction or justice. The central premise of the scientific argument is that before a person attains 20 years, their part of the brain that controls that govern judgment, reasoning, and impulse control, is not yet fully developed. They would commit a capital crime with a lack of intentions. The biblical point of view, like the unanimous societal view, indicate that killing is morally wrong, because God gives life, so no one should knowingly initiate the death of another person. Concerning the criminal justice system, the death penalty on juveniles lacks the premise because of its purpose. The aim of punishing someone when he or she has committed a crime is to rehabilitate the person and prevent future occurrences of the same crime. Killing a criminal does not help prevent the crime than giving alternative painful sentencing, and allowing the victim to convince potential perpetrators from doing the crime through sharing the experiences of the consequence of the crime while serving a jail term.

References

Bible, H. (1995). New American Standard Bible. Grand Rapids: World.

Capital punishment (n.d.). BBC. Retrieved August 3, 2020, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/for_1.shtml