Should Teenagers be Subject to the Death Penalty - Research Paper Example

? Should Teenagers be to the Death Penalty? I. Introduction A. Background and Research Problem Crime is defined as an infringement of criminal laws for which the criminal is subjected to some kind of formal penalty by the governmental authority. Countries like USA and some other third world nations use capital punishment or death penalty to deter crime (Schaefer, 2005, p. 191). However, figures and facts show that in spite of resorting to death penalties, the crime rate of USA is still quite high. Hence, the idea of death penalty as a deterrent to crime becomes quite controversial. Most of the countries have ceased applying death sentences to deter crime. Today, more than half of the nations across the world have stopped death penalty either by rule or through practice. They have reported that death sentence is not a solution to deter crime. The social and economic environment of the criminal directs crime. The first nations to have put an end to capital punishment were Venezuela, San Marino, and Costa Rica in the mid-nineteenth century. Other countries like Yugoslavia, Montenegro Serbia, Turkey and Chile have also abolished death penalties from 2000. Executions are prevalent in China, Saudi Arabia and the United States of America. (The European Union is united against Capital Punishment, 2007). The sentencing of youths who have been convicted of violent crimes to execution again depends on the extent of atrocity of the crime. The Juvenile Courts have long protected most of the young offenders from the full-fledged application of criminal law and have also allowed them to enjoyment of their special rights and immunities. The special rights mainly include protection from publicity, imprisonment only to 21 years of age, no imprisonment with adults, and shelter from the consequences of adult punishment like the loss of civil entitlements, the exercise of adjudication against the juvenile convict in the following proceedings and debarment from public employment. The reason for drafting such rights and immunities is to provide the young convict with guidance and rehabilitation so as to ensure the child’s future as well as the protection of the society. Nevertheless, there are some youngsters who are extremely perilous and do not respond to efforts taken to reform them. The use of death penalty under such circumstances would actually depend on the nature of the crime and on the mental state of the offender. However, giving another scope to the youth to rectify and straighten oneself out is desirable (Laurence and Scott, 2003, pp. 1009-1018). Human rights groups have constantly argued against the death penalty inflicted upon a juvenile offender on the grounds of immaturity and vulnerability of impulse. This has especially taken a positive turn after the mentally retarded people were barred from such penalties (Bender, 2002, p. 20). Public consensus already has spoken against the death penalty for juvenile offenders. For instance, a Chicago survey of 2001 showed that while 62 percent favored death penalty for capital crimes, only 34 percent support the same for the teenagers under 18 years of age. The present research centers on the death penalty inflicted upon teenagers and attempts to argue against the moral and practical viability of such steps taken. B. Problem Statement and Purpose The execution or imposition of death penalty on offenders with mental retardation is against the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” as enforced by the Constitution. The three states of US, Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia have carried out 82 percent of all the death penalties in the nation (American Bar Association, 2004, p. 2). Human rights groups and the director of Amnesty International argue that even the imposition of death penalty on teenage offenders was unconstitutional. Hence death penalty might lead to contradiction of human rights especially in case of children or teenagers despite the adults who might be responsible for the actions of the vulnerable, impulsive, and young and poor decision makers. The purpose of the research in the context of the above problem is to understand whether punishing teenagers with death penalty is immoral. C. Research Question In the context of the Eight Amendment and the later Supreme Court’s decision in opposing death penalty for mentally retarded people on constitutional grounds, can it be argued that execution of teenage offenders will prove against the human rights? D. Theoretical Foundations The first demerit of death penalty against teenagers might be analyzed on grounds of the new standards of decency established in topical times. Such discourse of the Court was meted out in case of the Kevin Stanford petition in 1989 where the unconstitutionality of imposing death penalty imposed on the juvenile offenders came in question. In fact after the Atkins Court’s decision in the Atkins vs. Virginia, 536, U.S. 304 (2002) case the juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded lawbreakers were considered as “Siamese Twins” with respect to death penalty. The opinion of the Atkins Court was based upon the newly developing benchmarks followed by the society. The Stanford case was significant with respect to the fact that after this case law was passed none of the states acted in favor of lowering the age limit for juvenile executions (American Bar Association, 2004). While people generally do not allow the teenagers under 18 to take part in military, to give votes or to take medical decisions, they should not be considered for rendering death penalty while punishing them even for the capital crimes. The Supreme Court therefore is considering putting an end to the “cruel and unusual” penalty inflicted upon criminals less than 18 years at the time of committing the crime (Harper, 2004). However whether a punishment can be considered as cruel and unusual should rest upon the society and its evaluation of the punishment. Previously the Supreme Court assessed the clause “cruel and unusual” in terms of the degree of penalties imposed and whether they are proportional to the crime. However in the light of the standards of decency the death penalty imposed on juvenile offenders will also be considered to fall under the mentioned clause. The world has witnessed a long history of executing teenage offenders but in recent times as opined by the Court the civilized countries have preached against the use of death penalty and condemns the same as indecent since offenders below 16 years especially were less culpable at the time of offense (Scott, 2005). E. Significance of the Study This research comes at a time when the American nation is witnessing a significant increase in the number of juvenile crimes and lawmakers are divided over the opinion of imparting death penalty as a punishment to criminal underage offenders. The civil society considers it as a violation of human rights. This study will therefore portray the difficulties faced by the society in not only handling judgments on crimes but also question the framework under which the society functions that is seeing such increase in criminal activities by young under age offenders. F. Scope of the Study This study should be a helpful reference to evaluate the happenings of the past and work on newer structures and policies of justice. In future the study could also be used as a basis of conducting further in depth analysis of each segment of society that is faced with juvenile crimes and address the issues that are responsible for such instances. G. Limitations and Assumptions Conducting a research is a very critical process and requires a very dedicated approach. Still limitations and difficulties are something every researcher must prepare for. This research similarly may face limitations in the form of reluctance on the part of people to undertake survey, not sharing original sentiments and views, duplicity of data, misrepresentation of facts, economic challenges of conducting the research, working on a time frame and ensuring a bias free report. Therefore it is necessary for a researcher to be proactive and anticipate all possibilities so that he/she may be able to be dynamic to situations that may hamper the process of research. Similarly assumptions are also made about how the researcher wants the survey to phase out and the specific area of result that is being aimed to derive from conducting the research. This should help the researcher stay focused and control how he/she must act to achieve their desired results. H. Thesis Statement & Hypothesis Thesis: The human rights principles increase moral concern over judicial decisions to impart death punishment to juvenile offenders, questioning the practicality of such decisions. Hypothesis: Imposition of death sentence on teenage offenders goes against the modern code of decency. I. LITERATURE REVIEW Historical evidence of laws concerning juvenile offenders can be traced back to the Roman laws of the fifth century that held young people attaining puberty accountable for their criminal offences. At 14 and 12, for boys and girls respectively which was the legal age of puberty, the youths were assumed to be capable of differentiating between right and wrong and thus being liable for prosecution. The American laws for juvenile justice find its roots in the Anglo-Saxon common laws in England, which in turn was influenced by laws of the Roman civil society. Post Civil War, the American society witnessed reform movements that paved the path for creation of separate courts of trial for adults and juveniles. It was considered that children were less mature and less concerned with the consequences and thus it would be unfair to hold them legally accountable for their offenses in the same manner as adults. (Hesse & Lawrence, 2009, pp. 12-16) The representation of juvenile death penalty as constitutionally cruel and unusual punishment has also been a focus of study in the article by Bogdanski, (2004 pp. 603-636). It refers to the presumption of law that children under the age of seven are incapable of forming criminal intent and are thus protected from death penalty. Children between the ages of seven and fourteen can also benefit from such presumption but death penalty can be imposed if it can be proved that the convict was capable of distinguishing right from wrong and understood the wrongful nature of the offense. Beyond such age restrictions, children are considered to be able to generate criminal intent and can be held fully liable for their actions. It has also been reported that the past 20 years has seen a considerable rise in the number of juvenile crime cases, which has prompted the need for proper psychological research relating to the credibility and competency of the testimonies of juvenile criminal justice system. Cases have been reported of wrongful convictions of juveniles in murder cases due to false confessions. Juveniles do not possess the mental maturity to withstand the interrogation process and often land up making false confessions. This resulted in the US Supreme Court acknowledging the presence of developmental differences between adults and juveniles engaging in criminal activity. (Meyer, Owen-Kostelnik, & Reppucci, 2006, pp. 286-304) The article on the case of Thompson v. Oklahoma (1998) saw adolescents and juveniles as not as mature as adults such that they are not deterred by the threat of punishment because of their age and I.Q. Hence deterrence as a mode of punishment seems inapplicable because juveniles do not take into account the consequences of their crimes. It also states that retribution also does not form the correct form of response to juveniles, as the objective of the juvenile justice system is not punishment but rehabilitation. (Romano, 2003, pp. 123-155) Another article citing the example of Christopher Simmons (17 years), Missouri focuses on whether juvenile offenders under the age of 18 at the time of committing a crime should be given the death penalty or not. Many groups both national and international argued that juvenile execution violates the standards of the international community, human rights norms, and a societal consensus. Science puts forward the view that the brain of an individual does not fully mature until the early 20s and hence juveniles are less concerned of their consequences than adults. They simply do not possess the moral culpability required for a death sentence. (Crime and (Age-Appropriate) Punishment, 2004, pp. 1461-1462) Furthermore, immaturity in adolescent development is affected by the many extenuating circumstances faced by juvenile offenders being tried for criminal offence. A vast majority of juveniles being tried for their crime is seen to have suffered abuse and extreme trauma. Most convicted juveniles have reported to being subject to prolonged duration of physical and sexual abuse often being perpetrated by more than one member of the family. It is noticed that the most recurring finding among juveniles who kill their family have been being witness or being a victim of domestic violence. There exists a high nexus between child abuse, neglect, poverty, emotional dysfunction, alcohol and drug abuse and crime (James & Cecil, 2004, pp.291-297). II. METHODOLOGY A. Sample/Research Any research is subjected to the collection of facts and opinions of various individuals and representation of such in a concise manner. Thus determining an appropriate sample size and use of proper techniques of sampling is crucial to the collection of Primary Data. The most common methods of Sampling are Simple random, Systematic and Stratified Sampling. However since the research of this paper is concerned about the views of a civil society on an aspect of mode of justice on underage children, the research technique need to be selected carefully in order to allow a methodical collection of views. For such it is then necessary to create stratum within the total population, such as ‘general public’, ‘teachers’ and ‘law-makers’ to gather the different views on the topic and analyze them accordingly. One can then accordingly use Simple random sampling while choosing samples from the strata would also help in avoiding any bias in the research process. (Cochran, 1999, pp. 89-96) B. Participants Since the topic tries to understand from a qualitative way how people perceive the death judgment on juveniles, the selection of participants of the survey should be on the basis of their levels of interactions with children. The general public would involve the views of parents and family members, the teachers would be knowledgeable about the thinking and evolving of children as they grow up and the views of lawmakers would be important from a legal perspective. The identity of such participants in the survey would also be protected as it deals with sensitive views, which may differ amongst individuals, so that there would be no concern of conflict of interest. The participants would also be chosen from an age group of above 21 years of age in order to avail of a mature thinking on the part of the participants. C. Data Collection This research paper would involve the collection of both primary and secondary data. The primary data would be qualitative in nature, as it would comprise of the views of the sample of survey. The secondary data would yields facts and figures about the crimes and related judgments that have taken place amongst juveniles. Such secondary data would be collected in the form of reports, journals, article and various periodicals that are concerned about the same topic. Collection of Qualitative data would be done through the use of qualitative Questionnaires as well as the use of personal interviews with participants. This should help the researcher in getting helpful insights to the emotions associated with juvenile crimes of the society. (Goddard & Melville, 2001, pp. 31-49) D. Procedures of Study It is necessary to follow a well-defined procedure in order to complete the survey properly and as accurately as possible. The initial step would be to define the population of the survey and create the necessary strata. Next one needs to prepare the questionnaire that would be used for survey. Then it would be necessary to fix specific timings with the participants if the researcher is willing to do personal interviews. Individuals would be time specific so that there is no overlapping of an interview session. The data that is being collected must also be recorded properly as most researches face the issue of repetition of data or overlooking data. It is also necessary for the researcher to ensure that data is not duplicated, as it would then yield incorrect inferences from the study. (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2003) E. Anticipated Findings The comparison and analysis of Primary and Secondary data should help understand the society’s’ understanding of juvenile crime and how they want such issues to be judged and handled. The research should also provide an insight as to the occurrence of juvenile crimes in respect to social boundaries such as race, region, gender, etc. Such findings when compared to the views of a generic population could also be a measure of the approach of a society towards it future and how it perceives itself as well as its social policies to be working. It should be helpful in understanding if a certain aspect is in immediate concern, or there is an urgent need to change how the society and law operates. Cases of juvenile crimes not only affect the ones who are associated with it but also the respective families and members. The trauma and concern faced by such parts of the society would also be brought out front through this research’s findings. F. Recommendations for Policy The final results of the paper should help make recommendations that can be used for policy making in respect to judgment of case related to juvenile crime. A democracy’s rules and legal framework is based around the benefits and protection of its own people and hence the findings of the paper that would be based on the views of the people should be helpful and important recommendations for all those who are concerned. The paper’s recommendations should cover the aspect of the views of society towards juvenile judgment, concerns about existing legal framework and possible measures to be taken to curb crimes and such. APPENDIX PROPOSED SURVEY/ QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Name: ______________________________________________________ 2. Age: ________________________________________________________ 3. Gender: _____________________________________________________ 4. Occupation: __________________________________________________ 5. Do you support death penalty as a punishment to criminals? a) Yes b) No 6. Do you support death penalty as a punishment to underage criminals? a) Yes b) No 7. What do you think is the impact of movies, The Internet and video games in leading juveniles to crime? a) Very High b) Average c) Low 8. What do you think is the relativity of juvenile crimes to drugs in the country? a) High b) Low 9. Do you believe young people should be in prison for charges of serious crimes? a) Yes b) No 10. Do you think capital punishment as a deterrent amongst juveniles to stop crimes? a) Yes b) No 11. Do you think your society is too soft in dealing with young criminals? a) Yes b) No 12. Would you feel morally challenged if a juvenile held for crimes against your family was served capital punishment? a) Yes b) No 13. Do you think juveniles should be treated and judged separately from adult criminals? a) Yes b) No 14. Do you think there are adequate measures and policies to control juvenile crimes in the future? a) Yes b) No 15. Have young people lost respect for authority that is leading to increased juvenile crimes? a) Yes b) No 16. Are schools doing enough to prevent juvenile crimes? a) Yes b) No 17. Do you think juvenile criminals understand the gravity of the crimes they commit? a) Yes b) No c) Maybe 18. Would rehabilitation be a better alternative to capital punishment for juveniles? a) Yes b) No c) Maybe References Bender, E. (2002), Death-Penalty Opponents Cite Teens’ Immature Brains, Psychiatric News, November 15, 37(22), 20, Retrieved on April 11, 2011 from: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/37/22/20.full American Bar Association (January 2004), Evolving Standards of Decency, Juvenile Justice Center, Retrieved on April 11, 2011 from: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/criminal_justice_section_newsletter/crimjust_juvjus_EvolvingStandards.authcheckdam.pdf Bogdanski, A. M. (2004). Relying on Atkins v. Virginia as Precedent to find the Juvenile Death Penalty Unconstitutional: Perpetuation Bad Precedent? Marquette Law Review, 87(3), 603-636 Cochran, W. G. (1999). Sampling Techniques. London: John Wiley & Sons. Cothern, L. (2000). Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. USA: US Dept of Justice. Retrieved on April 11, 2011 from: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/184748.pdf Crime and (Age-Appropriate) Punishment, (2004), The Lancet, 364(9444), 1461-1462. Retrieved on April 11, 2011 from: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIso140-6736(04)17283-8/fulltext Goddard, W., & Melville, S. (2001). Research Methodology:An Introduction. Cape Town: Juta & Co Ltd. Harper, S. (January 26, 2004), Death Penalty for Teens, Washington Post, Retrieved on April 11, 2011 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49219-2004Jan26.html Hesse, M., & Lawrence, R. (2009). Juvenile Justice:The Essentials. USA: Sage Publications. James, A., & Cecile, J. (2004). Out of Step:Juvenile Death penalty in United States. The International Journal of Children Rights , 291-297. Meyer, J. R., Owen-Kostelnik, J., & Reppucci, D. N. (2006) Testimony and Interrogation of Minors Assumptions Maturity and Morality. American Psychologist, 61(4), 286-304 Romano, J. F. (2003) Kinder, Gentler, and more Capricious: The Death Penalty after Atkins v. Virginia. St John’s Law Review, 77(1), 123-155 Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students. India: Pearson Education. Schaefer, R.T. (2005), Sociology: A Brief Introduction, New York: Tata McGraw-Hill Scott, C. (2005), Roper v. Simmons: Can Juvenile Offenders be Executed?, J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 33(4), 547-552, Retrieved on April 11, 2011 from: http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/4/547 Steinberg, L. and Scott, E.S. (2003), “Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty”, American Psychologist, 58(12), 1009-18. The European Union is united against Capital Punishment, (2007), Business Wire, Retrieved on April 11, 2011 from: http://www.allbusiness.com/government/international-organizations/5288524-1.html Read More