Criminal Justice System in Regards to the Death Penalty on Juveniles - Research Paper Example

Juvenile Criminal Justice System: Analysis of Research into the Death Penalty The fact that the issue of the death penalty on juveniles is one of the most debated elements in the US criminal justice system cannot be overstated. A brief look into the statistics indicates that 22 individuals have been executed for crimes while under the age of 18 (DPIC). The epitome of the issue was in the famed Roper versus Simmons case in 2005 when the US Supreme Court ruled that execution of juvenile was cruel and unusual and thus unconstitutional (Wilson 2). A further dimension of the issue is that the death penalty on juveniles is in direct contravention of international law. This study will review and critically analyze two pieces of research that have been done on the issue of the death penalty and juveniles, and then provide a personal perspective on the matter before arriving at a conclusion. Study 1: Linking Adolescent Brain Development with Legal Culpability: The first study under review is by Ortiz published in the Juvenile Justice Center by the American Bar Association, titled “Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Juvenile Death Penalty Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability” (1-4). An overview of the study indicates that the researcher drew in on Biology and psychology of the human brain in terms of development. The scholar first reviews the structure and function of the brain and then discusses how advances in imaging technology have allowed scientists to generate safely real-time 3D images of the brain that can be used to map the development of the brain. A connection of brain biology and behavior is then done, where the scholar establishes that in terms of development, the teenage brain has not yet developed organization, planning, decision-making and strategizing skills as in the adult. Alongside other behavioral, biological and environmental contributors (such as childhood abuse and violence for the latter), a link to delinquency occurs and thus childhood crimes which may lead to crimes that warrant the death penalty. The author’s conclusion is that this fresh understanding translates to teenagers being less morally culpable for their actions; hence although they should be punished for crimes it should not be to the same level as adults. The death penalty, therefore, has no place in contemporary US society. An analysis of this piece of research first appreciates its drawing on scientific evidence against the death penalty among juveniles. Through reviewing information on brain imaging via novel techniques such as 3-D MRI, the researcher convinces that the teenager’s brain is in a state of development and has not achieved adult levels of organization, strategy-making and decision-making. A link between adolescent level of brain development and adolescent behavior is established explaining most of the known traits observed among teenagers. The researcher then brings in the environmental aspect on teenage development and cites childhood violence and abuse as influencing teenage behavior. It is observed that the scholar uses evidence from credible researchers such as those from Harvard Medical School, NIMH and UCLA and peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Neuroscience and Journal of Psychiatry to make his arguments. Thus, the credibility and strength of the scholar’s argument that the death penalty should not be practiced among children is sustained. The author, however, fails to analyze any arguments or scientific evidence against his hypothesis to seek to establish whether there is any proof of moral culpability of teenagers to crimes that warrant a death penalty. Study 2: Application of Neuroscience in the Criminal Justice System in regards to the Death Penalty on Juveniles: The second study under review is by Jennings published in Duke Law and Technology Review and titled “Juvenile Justice, Sullivan, and Graham: How the Supreme Court’s Decision will change the Neuroscience Debate” (2-10). Jennings notes the grand advances that have occurred in neuroscience in recent times and observes that the US Supreme Court cited this research in its abolition of the juvenile death penalty in the Roper versus Simmons case. The author then notes the controversy and debate that surrounds the issue and the Supreme Court’s decision. Cases on the constitutionality of juvenile life imprisonment have arisen with certain sections arguing that neuroscience is indicative of less legal culpability of teenagers and thus warranting reforms in the entire juvenile criminal justice system. This is because the current system results in disproportionate, cruel and unusual rulings on teenagers. Others, however, feel that the criminal justice system is headed in the wrong direction in applying such studies to make decisions and determine policy. The scholar then discusses the arguments for use of neuroscience studies in the Supreme Court’s decision. Here, it is observed that neuro-imaging studies alongside psychological studies are the best and the most sophisticated sources of information offering insight into human development. Proponents also argue that the tenets of the criminal justice system in terms of the actual reasons for punishment are lost in the juvenile death penalty in light of the knowledge that juveniles are less culpable for their crimes. The arguments against include the quality of the scientific data in terms of novelty of neuro-imaging, sample sizes and bias. Besides, linking criminal justice and biology should be exercised with caution while also considering that the issue is a moral and legal one rather than a scientific one. An analysis of this study notes the balances given to review of both sides of the debate. Persuasive arguments are provided in both cases. The proponents for application of neuroscience by the criminal justice system present their case based on the best source of information about teenage thinking. They observe that none comes close to neuro-imaging and psychology and thus ponder why these should not be used in informing criminal justice system decisions. On the other hand, opponents raise valid points on the reliability, validity and generalization concerns of scientific evidence and argue that the criminal justice system should shy away from un-cautioned application of such evidence in decision-making and rulings. The mere basic ethos of justice is brought into question with the debate on crime being a moral-legal issue versus its being a scientific issue. Which aspect should take importance and priority over the other? Should crime punishment be watered down due to scientific insight? The author also applies credible evidence including sources from Journal of Law and Family Studies, NW Law Review and Journal of Criminology and Law. However, his failure to take a position on the issue is a weakness. Personal Opinion on Juvenile Death Penalty: I first realize and appreciate the implications of applying neurobiology and other sciences in the criminal justice system; questions on the legality of other punishments on teenagers will arise based on scientific evidence which will reduce the stability of the juvenile criminal justice system. Concerns also arise when considering that although evidence places them at lower thinking ability, teenagers are sufficiently and cognitively developed to understand and take advantage of changes in juvenile criminal justice system. Hence, if it appears that punishment has been watered down, the battle against delinquency may be lost as more teenagers may fail to desist from engaging in criminal activities. This reasoning, however, pales in comparison to the great evidence for elimination of the juvenile death penalty. Although neuro-imaging is considerably novel, its findings reinforce what has been the argument of psychologists and behavioral scientists for years. The two combine to provide evidence that juveniles are less culpable for crimes and thus it is unfair, disproportionate and unconstitutional to punish them like adults: a view already accepted by international law (Wilson 2). Thus, based on neurobiology and psychology evidence, I support the view that the juvenile death penalty is cruel and unusual and should be done away with rightly. Works Cited DPIC. Juveniles and the Death Penalty: Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-0633. 2011. Web. 12 December 2011. Jennings, Cooper J. “Juvenile Justice, Sullivan, and Graham: How the Supreme Court’s Decision will change the Neuroscience Debate.” Duke Law and Technology Review, 2010: 1-10. Ortiz, Adam. “Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Juvenile Death Penalty Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability.” Juvenile Justice Center- ABA, 202 (2004): 1-4. Wilson, John J. Juveniles and the Death Penalty. Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2001. Web. 12 December 2011. Read More