Legal Execution of Juvenile offenders - Term Paper Example

?Running Head: Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Offenders [Institute’s TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 Introduction4 Statement of Problem 4 Discussion 4 Conclusion 9 References 11 Juvenile Offenders Abstract This paper revolves around the statement that “Juvenile offenders who commit murder under the age of 18 should not be legally executed.” There are various reasons for supporting this stance. First, juvenile offenders who are less than the ages of 18 are not mature enough to understand the full weight of their decisions. Second, they also fail to communicate well within court environments and it is easy for the attorneys to force them to change their statements. Third, majority of the juvenile offenders have a traumatic history which not only questions their mental health but also the efficiency of social institutions such as schools, high schools, hospitals, family and others to ensure proper development of children. Fourth, European Convention of Human Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child and other international charters and conventions clearly state about the right of every person to live and the fact that children can not receive capital punishments. Fifth, the public opinion is supports the stance of this paper. Sixth, capital punishment evades the chance of any individual to prove him or her innocent in future in light of any new developments or evidence. Introduction This paper is an attempt to explore the controversial, serious, and debatable issue about juvenile offenders. The paper discusses the question of legal execution of juvenile offenders who are less than the age of 18 years and have committed a murder. Statement of Problem The paper will take the stance that "Juvenile offenders who commit murder under the age of 18 should not be legally executed". Therefore, the paper will shed some light on the arguments, opposing legal execution of such juvenile offenders. Furthermore, the paper will also take up the arguments presented by the supporters of legal execution of such juvenile offenders and would try to prove that why those arguments are incorrect or sufficient to base a final decision on them. There are various reasons behind choosing this topic. First, since the past few years, this issue has been of great attention and debate in the public and expert circles. Second, in light of my personal stance on the topic, I believe that by legal execution of juvenile offenders, the law enforcement agencies are not following but breaking the law and contributing to a crime and it is our responsibility to play our part to stop it. Third, children are the future of any nation and if they are committing such actions then this is a wake up call for all authorities and with the help of this paper, I put emphasis on the fact that it is time for them to sit down and reexamine the entire system and the root cause of the same. Discussion One of most important arguments in opposition of juveniles facing legal execution is the fact that studies have shown that children under the ages of 18 are still in their developmental stages. During this age, juveniles are still immature and they fail to understand the full weight and consequences of their decision (Siegel & Welsh, 2008). Furthermore, children are more vulnerable to peer-pressure and are more likely to engage in risky behaviors. Since they are developmentally different from adults, they fail to control their temptations and impulses, which make it morally incorrect to treat them as adults or blame them for their actions in the same way as adults (Hesse, Lawrence & Hesse, 2009). That is also the reason why 18 years is the minimum age for every big step in life. There are many countries in the world, which do not allow marriage before the age of 18; in fact, some countries and states extend the same to the limit to the age of 21 (Boesky & American Correctional Association, 2002). Moreover, 18 years is also the minimum age for voting, entering into a contract, become a part of juries, take important positions as an employee, take important medical decisions, enter the military and others. If the law recognizes that people are not mature enough to take important decisions until they are 18 then why would the law treat juveniles same as the adults when it comes to legal execution (Benekos & Merlo, 2008; Binder, Geis, & Bruce, 2000). It is also important to note that children are also not fit for the court and prison environment where they would have to deal with attorneys and answer the tricky questions of lawyers. Children are poor witness, they tend to forget things and cannot memorize accurately. Furthermore, not only it is easy to trick or force children into providing specific information but it is also easy to tame their statements and behaviors (Binder, Geis, & Bruce, 2000). Therefore, whatever information children would provide in the court, there are all the chances, that information might not be correct and the child may not even have a clue about the same (Boesky & American Correctional Association, 2002). Evidence from almost all studies about juvenile criminals in United States shows that majority of these children belong to low middle class families, homeless families, orphans, have suffered through mental and physical trauma, were subjected to sexual and physical abuse and others. In short, it is highly likely that the juveniles who would be charged with murder would be suffering from extreme mental and emotional trauma (Siegel & Welsh, 2008). Most of these children have a history, which blames the entire society because it is the society, its elders and the institutions within it, which are responsible for the positive and healthy development of children (Hesse, Lawrence & Hesse, 2009). Execution, imprisonment, fines, serving as volunteers, rehabilitation or any forms of punishment for the offender are not for the sake of it but they are a way with which the law enforcement agencies hope to make the society a better place (Benekos & Merlo, 2008). Punishment is a tool with which the law enforcement agencies believe to reinforce the message of peace and living as a good citizen in the hearts and minds of the offenders for the rest of the lives. However, with legal execution or capital punishment, there is no possible way that society could become a better place. In fact, by legally executing a juvenile, the jury would deprive the society with what could have been a creative and contributing youth or adult in the society. Juveniles, who commit murder, do not commit the crime out of evil or because they are bad people, they do it, mostly, because they had suffered from mental and emotional disorders due to their past events in their lives (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of the institutions to make sure that juvenile offender receives medical and mental care to ensure that the child could live the life of a normal person. This does not mean that the offender must not stay in prison or receive no punishment at all for his or her acts but those punishments should be handed out in consideration with the physical and mental development of the child and the circumstances in which the offender committed the crime. Furthermore, there is also no possible justification for allowing the juvenile to remain in any adult prison. In fact, it should be ensured at all times that, juvenile offenders should stay away from adult and expert criminals. Not in United States but in many other countries in the world, criminal systems would merge the juvenile offenders with other criminals. Even the children, which are serving in the prison for less severe crimes, should not mingle with other criminals with serious and long criminal history. This way they would enter the prison as children but rather than improving or becoming a good citizen, they would end up becoming expert criminals with all possible knowledge about crimes and breaking the law (Binder, Geis, & Bruce, 2000; Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Another important argument in this regard comes from the law itself. Almost all international charters, human right conventions, and laws recognize the point that the right to life is the basic right of every person. For example, Article 2 of European Convention of Human Rights (Martin, 2006) states, “Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.” Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 1, 3 and 5 (Martin, 2006) state, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person” and “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment”. More importantly, these laws are general but even the United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child (Martin, 2006) acknowledges in the Article 6, “Every child has the inherent right to life. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child”. Furthermore, the article 37 explicitly states, “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age” (Hesse, Lawrence & Hesse, 2009). Important here to note is that if the government or law enforcement agencies decide to execute juveniles this would not send the right message to the child. Even if a child has taken some one’s life in his or her sane mind then by executing him or her, would not the government be taking the role of the criminal? If a child has taken someone’s life then by doing the same in terms of taking the life of that child, would not the government be committing a crime as well? Do two wrongs make a right? The government and the law enforcement agencies are not there to enforce the law of jungle in the society, which is “an ear for an ear”, “an eye for an eye” and “a life for a life”; however, these institutions are there to protect the society by “changing the lives” of offenders. Quite understandably, changing lives does not include taking away lives (Benekos & Merlo, 2008). According to many surveys and polls, the general opinion within public is against the legal execution of the juveniles. People have appeared to agree to the fact that in most of the cases, children who commit crime are not in their sane mind. They fail to think it through and weigh the consequences, unlike adults (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). The supporters of legal execution for juvenile offenders present their argument by saying that public opinion does not matter to the law. These people fail to understand that eventually it is the public opinion, which makes the law. In a democratic country like the US, the public elects its representatives for law making and policymaking; therefore, there is no point in avoiding the public opinion (Hesse, Lawrence & Hesse, 2009). According to the statistics from 1975 to 2005 of 23 states, more than 123 people who received death penalties later proved themselves as innocent and saved their lives. However, important here to note is that for all these people the clock was ticking and if they would have failed to provide the evidence or other arguments in time then they would have ceased to exist (Siegel & Welsh, 2008). Furthermore, it also shows that there is a possibility that many innocent people may have been executed just because they did not had enough time to prove their innocence. On the other hand, if the person receives a lifetime imprisonment sentence then he has to chance to prove his innocence in light of any new evidence, which comes up. As mentioned earlier that many juvenile offenders end up getting punishment not because they are guilty but because of their age and their mental level, they fail to convince people that they are innocent. Attorneys and public defenders fail to communicate well with children, offenders fail to identify witnesses, and the offenders may easily come under pressure and change their statements without even realizing the full weight of their actions (Siegel & Welsh, 2008). Conclusion Therefore, towards the end, it is understandable to conclude that there are few rational and logical arguments behind the supporting the legal execution of juveniles less than the age of 18 who commit murders or any other crimes. Not only in the recent past but also time and time again, the public voted for putting an end to the same and also the Supreme Court has its given its verdict in various cases such as in 2005 that legal execution of juveniles must not take place. The international conventions and charters of human rights, signed and approved by almost all countries of the world, clearly mention that every person has the right to live. More importantly, children have the right to liberty, life, and freedom more than anyone else does. Moreover, the UN Convention of Rights of Children also states that any child cannot be subjected to capital punishment (Siegel & Welsh, 2008). Not only is it incorrect and wrong on moral and ethical grounds but also, at the same time, even the law itself, as mentioned earlier as well, and psychology provides evidence of treating juvenile offenders differently. The government and the law enforcement agencies are there to ensure the protection of the people in the society and ensure that the offenders could rejoin the society as better people (Benekos & Merlo, 2008). However, killing juvenile offenders, who have great potential to improve and serve the society as better citizens, is the worst possible option for enforcing power and making the world a better place to live. References Benekos, P. & Merlo, A. (2008). “Juvenile Justice: The Legacy of Punitive Policy.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. January 2008 6: 28-46 Binder, A., Geis, G., & Bruce, D. D. (2000). Juvenile delinquency: historical, cultural, and legal perspectives. Elsevier. Boesky, L. M., & American Correctional Association. (2002). Juvenile offenders with mental health disorders: who are they and what do we do with them? American Correctional Association. Hesse, M. L., Lawrence, R., & Hesse, M. (2009). Juvenile Justice: The Essentials. SAGE. Martin, F. F. (2006). International Human Rights & Humanitarian Law. Cambridge University Press. Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. D. (2008). Rethinking juvenile justice. Harvard University Press. Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. (2008). Juvenile delinquency: theory, practice, and law. Cengage Learning. Read More