Capital Punishment And Minors Essay, Research Paper

The death penalty is utilized as an optimistic view to alleviate much of what is morally, and

criminally wrong with our society. Yet in reality, capital punishment does nothing to improve

America?s justice system by allegedly acting as a deterrent to the criminals. Nevertheless,

Americans continue to execute adults and children on dubious principles. The execution of

children is particularly outrageous. International and Federal standards sanction that children are

exempt from the death penalty; not in order to grant absolution for their crimes, or to disparage

the suffering of the victim?s family, but in recognition of their immaturity and potential for

rehabilitation. The cases of juvenile offenders on America?s death row continue to reflect more

than just the specific concerns raised by their immaturity at the time of the offense, but represent

the more important justification for a punishment that is antiquated. A closer look at capital

punishment reveals problems that consist of a lack of ethics regarding a child?s life, a possible

enormous risk of wrongful conviction, and a staggering amount of money spent that does not

accomplish any means of deterring others from committing murder.

Foremost, in considering the appropriateness of capital punishment is the importance of

understanding the federal laws, state laws, and an importance of international standards.

Maryland law and federal law deliberated that those under 18 are not adequately mature enough

to make adult decisions. Hence, those under 18 are not able to vote, they cannot legally drink,

nor are they able to join the armed forces. By this reasoning, a juvenile whom the nation does not

trust to make adult decisions should not be executed for choosing to perform the immoral act of

murder.

The Supreme Court arrived at its 1988 decision that, in effect, acknowledged the rationale

of cases involving minors; that there is an assumption that adolescents are too young to

understand the consequences of their actions, and set the minimum age at 16 in the landmark case

Thompson vs. Oklahoma. Nevertheless, Melissa Sickmund, a senior research associate at the

National Center for Juvenile Justice, believes that the minimum age is a function of the political

landscape, ?If the Supreme Court were to consider the 1988 case now it would have to take into

account the ever more popular tendency of the states to try minors as adults? (Butcher 4).

Likewise, International Standards prohibit the death penalty against juvenile offenders, and

organizations such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, American

Covenant on Human Rights, and Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those

Facing the Death Penalty agree that, ?Persons below 18 years of age at the time of the

commission of the crime shall not be sentenced to death? (qtd. in Amnesty International?s

Campaign 2) and have been endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly to help ensure

universal ethical treatment of children. According to Amnesty International, the United States of

America has carried out more documented executions of Juvenile offenders than any other

country.

Ironically, the majority of these offenders that have been executed since 1990 were of

serious or mental deprivation. These adolescent?s lifestyles consisted of a regular use of drugs and

alcohol, and the child held a considerably lower than average intelligence. Many offenders had

some type of brain damage, and most had poor or inexperienced legal counsel; which resulted in a

loss of important information and incompetent representation. Unfortunately, even in America we

continue to practice the barbaric execution of children, continue to ignore international standards,

and sadly there are inherent problems because it does not deter crime.

Kevin Hughes, a diagnosed schizophrenic, provides a strong case study of mitigating

circumstances that were over looked in order to execute a minor. Sixteen year-old Hughes,

strangled and raped another child in March 1979. His relatives testified that Hughes suffered

from, ?. . .extreme mood swings, hear[d] voices, and [would] often be out of touch with reality.

His elder brother say that Kevin ?believed that he had magical powers, and that there was some

kind of magic that protected him. This was especially strange to listen to, because it was obvious

from all the bad things he went through that nothing had ever protected him? (Amnesty

International Report 25). Furthermore, Hughes was diagnosed as suffering from brain damage as

a result of childhood abuse and had a subaverage IQ. In this case, the jury was not properly

instructed on how to review Hughes? case, and the jury never heard evidence of Hughes? abuse

and neglect in his childhood or his mental illness. Hughes was sentenced to death in March of

1981, and hopefully an appeal will ensure for clemency; in order for better mental health care for

a boy who should not be sentenced to death, but should be treated in a facility that can help his

state of mind. Psychologically, it is impossible to use the death penalty as a deterrent, because

those with no cognitive moral capacity are unable to understand its use as a punishment.

According to Ernest van den Haag, ?Capital punishment is regarded as unjust because it

may lead to the execution of the innocents, or because the guilty poor (or disadvantaged) are

more likely to be executed than the guilty rich? (Capital Punishment: A Reader 48). In

considering the claim of injustice by reason of innocence, a convicted man that is found guilty,

who is innocent, and if sentenced to be executed, the penalty cannot be reversed. With this

knowledge, a human being should not be morally able to put a child to death when alternatives

such as life in prison can provide the same justice at a lower cost to America. This would serve as

a deterrent, inasmuch as those in prison could be rehabilitated. Likewise, the child would not be

able to become a martyr, and thus, his peers and community could see him in prison for life; which

is an obvious deterrent.

The death penalty is unlike all other sentences, because it is irreversible. Marietta Jaeger,

whose seven-year-old daughter was kidnapped, raped, and murdered believes that the death

penalty is wrong, ?I say there is no amount of retaliatory deaths that would compensate to me the

inestimable value of my daughter?s life, nor would they restore her to my arms or keep others

from committing murder. To say that the death of any person would be just retribution is to insult

the immeasurable worth of our loved ones who are victims? (qtd.. Amnesty International?s

Campaign 12). Therefore, no notion of capital punishment, as a deterrent, can be applied to

children, inasmuch as the result can be gained by a child serving a life sentence, with no possibility

for parole. Taking a life for another life solves nothing, except to guarantee a tremendous

expense to the state.

According to Dieter, across the country, there are less police working, prisoners are being

released early, the courts are overburdened, crime continues to increase, and the ?economic

recession has caused cutbacks in the backbone of the criminal justice system? (Dieter 1). Dieter

cites that the recession has caused Florida a budget crisis that resulted in the early release of 3,000

prisoners; Texas prisoners are only serving 20% of their time and rearrests are prevalent; Georgia

has laid off 900 correctional personnel, and New Jersey has had to dismiss 500 police officers.

Nevertheless, these states, and many others, amazingly continues to place money into the death

penalty with no consequent reduction in crime.

The higher cost to the state, is due to the fact that the legal process in death penalty cases

is very complicated, and reflects the jeopardy of someone?s life. Death penalty trials are longer

and more complicated than non-death penalty murder trials. According to Richard Dieter, ?Over

two-thirds of the states and the federal government have installed an exorbitantly expensive

system of capital punishment which has been a failure by any measure of effectiveness. Literally

hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent on a response to crime which is calculated

to be carried out on a few people each year, and which has done nothing to stem the rise in

violent crime? (2). Anyone on trial for his life should be expected to mount an energetic defense.

During a detailed trial that can include an intensive use of experts and investigators; this can

become expensive. Furthermore, if convicted, death penalty cases require a sufficiently long ?due

process? in hopes to ensure the guilt of the convict. Thus, such a lengthy process will never be

inexpensive.

The enormous cost of death penalty cases are realistically guaranteeing Americans a

diminished safety, because of the redirection of money towards legal resources that are being

diverted from effective crime fighting strategies. Examples of lack of money for innovations like

community policing can be noted in California and Texas. Before the LA Riots, California

achieved spending an extra $90 million per year on capital punishment, yet somehow neglected

the safety of the people. Texas, has over 300 people, 50 of which are juveniles, on death row,

and on average is spending an estimated $2.3 million per case, leading the country in executions

of minors, and yet its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country. Capital punishment is

obviously not deterring the crime rate, and America continuously expends money on a punishment

which does nothing but burden the people of that state.

Even with the phenomenal amount of money funneled into capital punishment; it has been

statistically proven that it does not deter murder. In fact, crime committed by juveniles has

increased steadily over the last few years, ?According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, juvenile

homicide arrests have increased by 170 percent in the last decade, while homicide arrest for adults

during the same period have increased 25 percent? (Butcher 3). Deterrence depends on the

possibility and ability of human responses to danger, not the rationality of the person?s thoughts.

Therefore, capital punishment is not psychologically able to deter someone who has violated the

law in fear of the judicial procedure or society. In essence, van den Haag theorizes that natural

dangers, all dangers not deliberately created by legislation, are insufficient. Therefore, fear of a

natural danger must be reinforced by legal punishment to those who violate the rules. These types

of punishments keep most people in compliance with the law. Yet, in the absence of natural

danger, the threatened punishment is light for the criminal violating the rules and, in this case,

obligation to the rules vanish. Elsewhere punishment deters. Therefore there is a distinct bell

curve to the notion of capital punishment in which it does not work as a deterrent.

In removal of a religions view, there are still, ?. . .two truths about the human person:

human life is both sacred and social? (Capital Punishment: A Reader, Bernardin 150) and

regardless of human merit or worthiness, a child is entitled to exist and hold a to chance for

rehabilitation. Distressingly, a young adolescent sentenced to death is deprived from his natural

self worth, his ability to rehabilitate, his potential, and some kind livelihood. Realistically, when a

human commits a crime, he should be punished for his crime in an appropriate manner which

deprives him of certain pleasures, but not of everything life has to offer, which is what the death

penalty ensures. Nor should we punish a person in a cruel and unusual way, but provide a

sentence that requires the criminals to be punished by a severe method; which life in prison does.

The value of a human life is immeasurable with all other values, and therefore the equating

punishment for murder, the death sentence, does not give provide retributionism, because value of

one?s murdered life does not equate to the value of another.

A suggested Alternative for reducing crime can be provided through evidence by New

York State?s policy on the death penalty. According to Dieter, New York does not utilize capital

punishment, by reason of a study presented by the NY State Defenders Association found that the

estimated cost to the state $1.8 million, just for the trial and the first stages of appeal per

defendant is too large of a burden. New York experienced a decline in every major crime in 1992

by implementing an increasingly popular concept of ?community policing?. Community policing

became, ?a strategy for utilizing police officers not just as people who react to crime, but also as

people who solve problems becoming an integral part of the neighborhoods they serve? (Dieter

8). This program apparently works well when the government can afford to increase the amount

of officers, rather than taking from existing numbers, leaving other work unattended. Crime rates

can drop as much as 30 percent as seen in Boston, where more officers are able to support the

community.

The increasing costs of the death penalty are, in reality, making America less safe because

of the loss of financial and legal resources that are presently being diverted from effective crime

fighting programs. Implementing programs which have been siphoned off because of the death

penalty, and working directly towards the front line goals on our war against crime would

increase the safety for all Americans. Money towards the police, correctional systems, and

neighborhood programs could install a safer community, and one where murder is not the norm,

but a less rare event.

In conclusion, the above studies provide evidence that the death penalty is severely

expensive, and provides no real justification for retributionism, safety for the society, or a notion

of responsibility for actions. Large sums of money that are focused on only a few individuals

produces no gauge of adequate results to justify their spending to execute one person, while more

effective and vital services to the community are being sacrificed. The theory of the death

penalty, in reality, was originally utilized as a means to deter others, a solution to crime, which is

impossible, as noted by Jaeger, who?s daughter will never return and murder will still continue. In

the end, maturity, mitigating circumstance, and psychological problems ought not to be by passed

in order to gain a conviction for all, especially for minors, who do need adults to protect their best

interests, regardless of a crime.

Amnesty International?s Campaign on the United States. On the Wrong Side Of History:

Children and the Death Penalty in the USA. New York, NY: Amnesty International

Publications, May 1998.

Amnesty International Report. ?Juveniles and the Death Penalty: Executions Worldwide since

1990.? Amnesty International Act 50/11/98. (1998) Online – Internet.

Available: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aipub/1998/ACT/A5001198.htm

Butcher, Matthew. ?Are They Too Young To Die?? MSNBC. (1998) Online – Internet.

Available: http://www.msnbc.com/news/127366.asp

Dieter, Richard C. Esq. ?Millions Misspent: What Politicians Don?t Say About the High Cost

of the Death Penalty.? Death Penalty Information Center. (1994) Online – Internet.

Available: http://www.essential.org/orgs/dpic/dpic.r08/html#sxn5

Stassen, Glen H., ed. Capital Punishment: A Reader. Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 1998.