Of course, those who advocate the death penalty for juveniles believe executions are the appropriate punishment for certain criminals committing specific crimes suchlike murder. Advocates assure that by executing murderers it prevents them from murdering again and, thereby, do save innocent life. Supporters say this is proven when it is "[estimated] that convicted criminals free on parole and probation [. . .] commit 'at least' 84,800 violent crimes every year, including 13,200 murders […]" (Sharp). They also argue that murderers have so violated the human rights of their victims and society that it should be a moral imperative that they never again have that opportunity. One brought up the point, "Should we err on the side of caution and protect the innocent and honor the memories of those murdered, or should we give murderers the opportunity to harm again?" (Sharp). Obviously, those executed cannot murder again. In addition, many capital punishment partisans dispute that, "opponents equate execution and murder" when it is simply a valid punishment. Supporters disagree with their opponents and say that anti-death penalty factions' belief is "that if two acts have the same ending or result, then those two acts are morally equivalent" (Sharp). Well, guess again, no sensible person would see kidnapping and legal incarceration as the same so, why would they see murder and capital punishment as the same. They are, however, correct in saying that anti-death penalty defenders do not always see capital punishment as the answer.
Furthermore, People who oppose allotting capital punishment to juveniles believe execution of a juvenile offender is contrary to fundamental principles of American justice. The justice system punishes according to the degree of culpability and reserves the death penalty for the deviant offenders. Opponents of the death penalty debate that adolescence is a transitional period of life when cognitive abilities, emotions, judgment, impulse control, and identity are still developing. Scientific, psychological research has illustrated that an adolescents are still developing in many areas such as impulse control and rationalizing. Juveniles are going through a "time of great change, cognitive skills, such as reasoning ability, impulse control, and an understanding of the long-term effects on ones behavior are still very much under development"(Stop the Internationally Illegal...). They are less advanced than adults in their identity development, moral judgment, assessment of risk and consequence, understanding of emotions and in their abilities to control impulses. These factors substantially affect how an adolescent thinks, appears, and behaves; these are powerful mitigating factors in a death penalty case.
Another, rationale for opponents is juveniles should not be held to the same standards as adult, hence the term juvenile. By their very nature, teenagers are less mature and, therefore, are less able to reason than adults who commit similar acts but have no such explanation for their conduct. Many adolescents are still finding their identity and trying to mature intellectually. Juveniles appearing before the court vary greatly and it is part of a Court’s responsibility to determine the maturity of a juvenile offender before referring them up from the juvenile system (Death Penalty). Children cannot vote or buy cigarettes until age 18, and society does not consider them mature enough to drink alcohol until they are age 21. Yet, proponents say they are mature enough to be executed. Many studies have shown that children who commit crimes have poor decision-making skills. They lack the ability to foresee the consequences of their actions (Kresnak 3). This is due to the juvenile’s insufficient maturity. The United Nations Standards Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice states, “criminal responsibility should be determined having taken into consideration the fact of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity of juveniles” (Death Penalty Info). If maturity was not relevant to deciding sentencing, why does society have regulations suggesting it is extremely pertinent.
In addition to immaturity and the inexperienced, undeveloped mind of a juvenile, challengers also contest the death penalty for the reason that there are alternatives available. Admittedly, opponents recognize and uphold the responsibility of society to protect everyone from people who are dangerous. Nonetheless, they do not find it necessary to kill children to accomplish that. There are well-documented and indisputably persistent problems in the application of the death penalty and in the criminal justice system as a whole in the United States of America (Stop the Internationally Illegal...). Therefore, those against capital punishment believe other options are more favorable. Such options are imprisonment for life without parole, systems that would force prisoners to pay for their incarcerations, or programs that allow prisoners to work and make indemnities directly to the survivors of their victims. United States should not lecture about human rights when they kill juvenile offenders habitually and more humane and suitable options are obtainable.
It is absolutely wrong to give still developing humans capital punishment, which is considered lessening the standards of decency. Our country is one of the four countries since 2000 to execute adolescents. In the past five years, the United States has executed 13 juvenile offenders, 3 in the year 2002 alone. Eight of these executions took place in the state of Texas. The rest of the world combined carried out five such executions. Scott Hain was executed in Oklahoma on April 13 of this year, making the US the first country to execute a juvenile offender in 2003 (Death Penalty Info). Senator Feingold voiced, "I don't think we should be proud of the fact that the United States is the world leader in the execution of child offenders" (Death Penalty). What has come to our country?
