The Trial of Pittman - Essay Example

Due Constitutional Law: v Pittman Facts of the Case Christopher Pittman is a 25-year-old male convicted of killing his grandparents. The defendant was 12 years at the time of the crime. The accused was proven guilty of murder by a court of law in 2005. Though he was a juvenile at the time of the crime, the court decided to try him as an adult due to the magnitude of the crime. The court thus considered the accused as an adult and handed a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison. Pittman had depression before committing the crime. He was under medication. He used an anti-depressant, Paxil, as medication for depression. The juvenile was sent by his father to live with the paternal grandparents in South Carolina. The hospitals in the state did not have any Paxil, so they opted for an alternative drug, Zoloft. Zoloft is also an antidepressant. The accused experienced extreme side effects as a result of drug substitution. In addition, the doctors decided to double the dosage in an effort to reduce the side effects (State v Pittman). On the day he committed the offense, the defendant was punished by his grandfather. He resented the punishment and took the decision to kill both grandparents. He used their shotgun to kill. He shot them and burnt the house using candles and paper. He consequently stole the family dog, $33 and left the house in his grandparents’ car. The trial court also heard that he was apprehended some counties away from the scene of the crime and claimed that the death of his grandparents was a result of burglary. The defendant attorneys argued that the accused ought not to have been tried as an adult due to health and mental issues. The defense attorneys argued that the Pittman was under duress from a mental condition. The claim is grounded on the fact that prior to the crime, the convict had a depression problem. Pittman was under antidepressant drugs at the time he committed the crime. South Carolina state law does not have an age limit that differentiates a juvenile trial and an adult trial. The trial court in South Carolina determined that the defendant could be tried as an adult. The prosecution showed that it was indeed the defendant that committed the crime using a shotgun. The court also heard the happenings prior to the attack and after the attack. The prosecutor proved that the offense was carefully choreographed, thus warranting an adult trial. However, the defense team is adamant that although Pittman committed the crime, he was a juvenile under depression. The accused was also under new medication that negatively impacted on his mental status. As such, the case deserves merit. Discussion The case is bound by the fact that the child acted with malice by killing the grandparents. It is clear from all angles that the resentment that the child had towards the grandparents was due to the punishment he got from them and also due to his parent’s problems. The defendant’s parents were unavailable to him. He claims that his father abused him and the mother was not always available to him. In this regard, the child may have developed an evil mentality and lost hope in his grandparents. In a normal family setting, a child depends on the parents, both father and mother, for both material and social support. In the case, Pittman had an on-off mother and a father who sent him away since he could not handle his depression problems. In this regard, he chose to send him to his grandparents. The extent of hatred may have triggered abnormal reactions. Parents have a collective responsibility for ensuring that the welfare of their children is guarded. The child’s welfare must precede any decisions that parents take. In the case of Pittman, the parents deliberately avoided parental duty by neglecting a child with depression. In fact, the abuses that the child faced may have triggered emotional turbulence that led to the crime. As explained, the accused was under depression medication, Paxil. The medication was changed to Zoloft in South Carolina. The change of medication brought about side effects that negatively affected the mental condition of the minor. The intuition here is that the parents neglected the medication of the child by sending him to a place with no suitable medication. Consequently, the action put the child under intense pressure from the new drug. The Supreme Court of South Carolina did not consider the additional impact that the new drug, Zoloft had on the minor. Rey and Birmaher argue that changing depression medication may result in abnormal conditions such as hyperactivity and emotional instability when it touches on the central nervous system (178). Another major concern in the case is the admission of the boy to killing his grandparents after the Miranda rights were waived. It is not clear whether a juvenile can make a competent decision to admit or deny a crime. Admitting a crime without the presence of an attorney was likely to instill undue influence on the juvenile. The eighth amendment to the United States constitution protects the public from excessive punishment from the state and federal government (U.S. Const. Amdt. 8). The bill provides for reasonable sentencing and bail. The Supreme Court of South Carolina may have erred in handing the juvenile a maximum punishment. In Miller v. Alabama, the jury ruled that it is unconstitutional to hand juvenile offenders maximum sentences as adults (2). The court considered the fact that children accused of homicide could be convicted to life in prison without an option for parole. The court held that children should have special status when it comes to sentencing. Thus, it is inappropriate to hand Pittman a maximum sentence for the offense. The law is clear that the courts of law must not hold child offenders as adults in law. Roper v. Simmons is case that brings the issue into perspective. The court held that juvenile suspects cannot be categorized in the same bracket with worst adult offenders (3). The court further ruled that classifying juvenile offenders as similar to adult is harsh treatment. The decision explains that juvenile offenders are very vulnerable to emotional problems and peer pressure. As such, the decisions they take is purely based on their experiences and happening around them. The statement implies that it is rare for a child to act out of malice. From a logical perspective, children are unable to exercise malice due to legal issues on age restrictions. We cannot argue that Pittman tried to steal the deceased car and money. It cannot be since the legal ownership of such property cannot be transferred to a minor. As a 12-year-old, the concept of having a truck would be purely based on fantasy. It is logical to insinuate that the defendant used the vehicle and the money as getaway mechanism. It is extremely inappropriate and morally indecent to exercise legal proceeding on an offense committed by a minor under the same guidelines as an adult as outlined in the case Jackson v. Hobbs. On previous opinions, the Judges have held that from a moral perspective, the actions of a minor cannot be equated with the actions of an adult. It is a misconception that is grounded in the quest for justice for the victims, but cause violations of the constitutional rights of the defendants. In this regard, the State Courts should not rely on voids in law to dismiss morality. In Pitman case, the court is not morally justified to pursue the case on grounds that the state law does not specify an age limit in which a child can be prosecuted as an adult. The supreme law of the land should hold superior. It follows that the superiority Eighth Amendment should surpass state laws. Dissenting Opinion In all court deliberations, the law should hold superior. The South Carolina law does not specify the age under which a juvenile can be subjected to a trial as an adult. The logical affirmation of justice lies on the fact that the minor committed a capital that is punishable by life imprisonment or death. However, the court inculcated several considerations and revised the punishment to 25 years. As such, the Eight Amendment does not apply in this situation. The sentencing is reasonable basing on the level of crime. The role of the courts is to render justice to both victims and the accused. Thus, the law must be followed in sentencing. Handing a 30 year to life imprisonment is a genuine punishment for such a crime; hence the supreme court of the United States may not admit the case. The Eight Amendment was made to prohibit the federal from pursuing unreasonable reparations for crimes. However, the sentence granted in the case is not harsh. The court acted within the law to grant the accused a sentence of 30 years as stipulated by the penal code. In this regard, it is legal wrong to claim that full implementation of the penal codes violates the Eighth Amendment unless we change the state laws and align them with the terms of the Eighth Amendment. Conclusion From the facts of the case and analysis, it is evident that the constitutional rights of the defendant under the Eight Amendment were violated. It is wrong under both legal and moral grounds to convict a child, who commits a crime because of depression, to 30 years. It is this the role of the supreme court of the land to ensure that all parties are sated. Thus, the Court has decided to admit the case for a review into the several violation of the juvenile rights under the Eight Amendment. The Supreme Court thus grants a motion filed by the accused. Works cited Jackson v. Hobbs. 10 US 9647. Supreme Court of the United States. 2012. LII Supreme Court Buleting, Cornel Law School. n.d. Web. 02 Dec 2014. Miller v. Alabama. 10 US 9646. Supreme Court of the United States. 2012. Supreme Court Collection. 2012. n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. Rey, Joseph, and Boris Birmaher. Treating Child and Adolescent Depression. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2009. Print. Roper v. Simmons. 03 US 633. Supreme Court of the United States. 2005. n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. State v Pittman. Supreme Court of South Carolina. US 26339. Supreme Court of South Calorina. 2007. Caselaw, Findlaw. N.d Web. 02 Dec 2014. U.S. Constitution. Eighth Amendment. Read More