Running Head: Juvenile Death Penalty 1

Death Penalty for Juveniles

An Argumentative Essay

Emily Velazquez

Holy Family University

Author Note

This paper was prepared for English 101, Section A, taught by Professor Millan.

Juvenile Death Penalty 2

Is sentencing a juvenile to death immoral? Most would say that it is. The U.S Supreme

Court ruled 16 to be the minimum age for an offender to be sentenced to death. Since 1976, there

have only been 22 executions of juveniles carried out, and more than half of those executions

have been carried out in Texas alone. In fact, there are only 12 states that actually have juvenile

offenders on death row. Despite the low number of executions that have occurred within the last

30 or so years, and also despite the small number of states that honor the juvenile death sentence,

there are many who oppose it. One of the most commonly used arguments is that the punishment

is unconstitutional, given that it ignores the eighth amendment, which prohibits the government

from imposing cruel and unusual punishment. But is it truly cruel to punish a young criminal in

the same way they would have been punished if they were just a few years older? Should a

person’s age be valued higher than the extremity of the crime? At the age of 16, a young person

is mature enough to be aware of his/her wrongdoings and should be punished accordingly, even

if the corresponding punishment is death.

Brain development is an argument that is widely used in attempting to prove why the

death penalty is immoral for adolescents. The theory that the human brain is not fully developed

until a person is 25 years of age is one that is highly utilized. However, a person in the United

States is legally considered to be an adult at the age of 18. If a 23 year old person brutally

murdered another, would people continue to argue that the death penalty is not a fair punishment

because his/her brain is not yet fully developed? The idea of the brain being fully developed,

though widely used, is one that many seem to use out of context. When hearing that statement, a

person who is uneducated in the subject may quickly jump to the conclusion that a teenager’s

brain does not function properly or that it is not mature enough for the adolescent to comprehend

his/ her actions. This conclusion can almost be deemed entirely false, given that the average

Juvenile Death Penalty 3

teenager’s brain is 80% developed at the age of 16 (Graham, 2008). That means that there is only

a mere 20% of the brain that needs to be developed. And it is shown that what continues to

develop through your 20s, 30s, and even early 40s is not the ability to make decisions, it’s the

ability to make better decisions. From a young age, the brain can tell what's right and what's

wrong, what continues to develop throughout the later years is the ability for certain parts of the

brain to work together and help adults make better choices (Edmonds). That does not mean,

however, that before those abilities are fully developed a person only makes wrong choices. A

person’s sense of morality is gained at a young age. It also does not mean that the wrong choices

that are made before full brain development can be blamed entirely on that basis.

Onto another aspect, when deciding a punishment that would be best for a particular

crime, age should not be the greatest factor. Let’s suppose a 17 year-old young man gruesomely

murders a middle-aged woman with a butcher’s knife and then throws her body in the river.

Coincidently, a healthy-minded 34 year-old man commits the same crime at a different location.

Both being atrocious crimes, should the younger, 17-year old have a lighter sentence than would

the 34 year-old? It is most probable that the older man be sentenced to death for such a crime.

Because the younger man also committed the exact same crime, it would be fair to assume that

he, too, would be sentenced to death. Unfortunately, in the U.S. legal system takes age into

consideration, meaning, that there is a possibility that the 17-year old walks free in a much

shorter time than the 34 year-old. His crime wasn’t any less abominable, yet because of his age,

the punishment is less. The severity of the crime, not age, should be what determines the

punishment. For a murder like the one described, if the death penalty is the punishment for one

offender, it should be the punishment for all offenders, regardless of age or personal background.

If the 17 year-old was able to plan, carry out, and attempt to cover up a murder like an adult

Juvenile Death Penalty 4

would, that means that his brain is thinking at an adult level, and so, should be tried as an adult

as well.

With the death penalty being a possible punishment for anyone 16 and older, it can serve

as a deterrent for juveniles. Teenagers can watch the news or read about certain laws online. If

they come across that no person under the age of 18 will be sentenced to death, no matter the

crime, it might motivate them to actually go on with the crime. They’ll get away with it either

way won’t they? And if they get 25 years, it’s no big deal because they’ll be out by the age of 40

or sooner. Is this the mindset that society wants for our teenagers? It sounds like a joke, and as if

no teenager would actually think this way. But actually, in one case in which a 16 year-old

murdered a woman, it was said by one of the lawyers handling the case that the young man had

“told his friends he could get away with it because of his age” (Juvenile Death Penalty, 2009). At

16, this young man was planning the murder and also thinking about the possible consequences

that he would face. He, however, did not think that the death penalty was even an option as a

punishment for him, because he was so young. Due to that reasoning, he went on and murdered a

mother who pleaded for her like, exclaiming that she had children. Perhaps, if the young man

would have known that the death sentence was a certain possibility for his actions, the innocent

woman would be alive today. Many people may not see the benefits of allowing the death

penalty to be a punishment for even adolescents, but it could possibly lower crime rates. A

teenager might think twice before committing a horrific crime if he/she realizes that they might

have to pay for their actions with their own lives.

The death penalty is a fair punishment for certain, severe crimes. A person is not

sentenced to death for stealing candy bar from a convenient store. The death sentence is a

punishment most usually given to those who have taken the lives of other people, sometimes

Juvenile Death Penalty 5

through very extreme methods. Whether a crime deserving of capital punishment is committed

by an adult or a teenager should not be in question. The details of the crime are solely what the

decision for punishment should be based on. Whether or not the brain is 100% developed should

also not be in question, given that the average human learns morals from an early age. The

possibility of capital punishment being an option for teenagers might also serve as a way to get

them to think again before going through with a planned crime. If they decide to go through with

it even while having knowledge of the possible penalty, then it only shows that they are mentally

capable of making informed decisions and are eligible to be sentenced to death.

Juvenile Death Penalty 6

References

Edmonds, Molly. Are teenage brains really different from adult brains? Retrieved November 17, 2012 from http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/teenage-brain.htm

Graham, Erin. (2008). The teenage brain. Children’s hospital Boston. Retrieved November 17, 2012 from http://www.childrenshospital.org/dream/summer08/the_teenage_brain.html

Juvenile death penalty. (2009, July 15). Issues and controversies on file. Retrieved November 17, 2012 from Issues and Controversies database.