The Difference in Neurological Development by the American Psychological Association - Research Paper Example

 In the case of Miller V. Alabama (2012), the accused person was convicted of aggravated murder, and the court of the State of Alabama sentenced the 14 year old to life imprisonment without parole. Miller stating that the court was in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments appealed the decision by the court. In other precedents decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that minors could not be imprisoned to death. Additionally, a minor cannot be imprisoned for life for a non-homicidal crime.

These precedents were in the case of Graham V Florida and Roper v. Simmons. The decision by the court was held to be absurd because the punishment was harsh and unusual for a 14-year-old child. The Supreme Court is a constitutional court and understands that it should not be in violation of the Bill of rights of an accused person. In this case, the accused person was a minor who was only 14 years old (American Psychological Association, 2012). When people were imprisoned, they are already being punished for their crimes; however, it would be cruel and unusual to punish a juvenile for life imprisonment.

According to the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States constitution, it states that no person should be subject to cruel and unjust punishments. Therefore, the court in making its decision did not consider that the accused was a minor and subjecting him to life imprisonment would only be devastating. Imprisonment is meant to rehabilitate and not make people as if they are not worthy. The American Psychological Association supported the miller’s petition to the Court of Appeal arguing that youths should not be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

The APA argued that a young person cannot be compared to an adult because youths are less developed. Additionally, the APA argued that young people are inherently less culpable compared to adults due to the difference in neurological development. Studies conducted by the American Psychological Association showed that youths were prone to engage the high-risk situation, and they are; therefore, vulnerable. Consequently, the brain of a young person is responsible for judgment and impulse control does not communicate in balance, as is the case in adults.

This means that juveniles do not have the same degree of control over the way they behave. APA codes of ethics in this case were used in the right way because they took the initiative to defend the accused person (American Psychological Association, 2012). For example, in the code of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence the psychologists safeguarded the rights and welfare of the accused person. They conducted a study where further took the Amicus Briefs to be used in court, in support of the accused person petition to the Court of Appeal.

The psychological team lead by the General Counsel of APA Mr. Nathalie Glifoyle in stating that the youth’s body and mind were less culpable than that of an adult. This showed that the APA was responsible and devoted as they took the time out of their work schedule to conduct a research on behalf of the accused person. The Psychologists’ involved in doing the research had integrity and were fair and just as they did not want to get rewarded for their actions they were doing what was right regardless of what the accused person had done or what he was accused of by the court.

This was established in the article, in the mental health, weekly” APA lauds High Court decision rejecting life sentences for youth.” ReferenceAmerican Psychological Association (2012). APA lauds High Court decision rejecting life sentences for youth. Mental weekly, 30(2), p8-36.Pdf