Juvenile Murderers: A Second Chance or Death
Introduction
The question over treatment of juvenile murderers creates a major debate in the social and political circles. There are proponents of public supporting punishment in the form of a life in prison without parole called LWOP, many believe that capital punishment is needed, and others support the implementation of life in prison with work and restitution called LWOP + W/R (Moon, Wright, Cullen, & Pealer, 2000, p. 663). One common aspect is the belief of the public is the need for bringing people to justice by either jail time or capital punishment. Another important aspect of the juvenile punishment system is the need to maintain the punitive course of action for juvenile murderers, as any decline in the rate of punishment has proven to be directly related to increase in Juvenile crimes such as murders (Levitt, 1997). This paper will explore the literature on the topic of juvenile murderers and ascertain a suitable punishment supported by the public.
Summary
Need for Punishment
The US Supreme Court provides a general framework for understanding their point of view on juvenile punishment for murderers. Even though, Supreme Court identifies capital punishment for juveniles as unusual and cruel, there are many cases of states sentencing juveniles with execution. The support behind such punishment is to get possible offenders in line, who might have similar intentions or carry death defying sentiments (Streib, 1996, p. 36-37). Juvenile courts aim to save young offenders, but at the same time it also aims to suppress Juvenile crime. This target cannot be achieved by punishing young offenders charged with murder (Eigen, 1981, p. 1089). A study conducted on the behaviour of juvenile murderers revealed that they presented offender characteristics that were aggravated by the presence of deterrence from the court and increases the possibilities of future crimes.
Avoiding Capital Punishment
The thought of capital punishment for murder committed by a minor creates the “deepest questions about the demands of justice versus the special nature of childhood” (Vrone, 1986, p. 791). There are many in our society that claims that a juvenile getting capital punishment is against morality and decency. The evolving standards of decency in society, is yet to embrace the thought of the death penalty for a juvenile. This is because; many people in society feel less moral outrage when a murder is committed by a juvenile, rather than an adult. Many regard juvenile murderers as less responsible and a group worthy of protection. The opponents of the death penalty for juveniles frequently appeal that intentional killing through capital punishment by the courts and the government is morally objectionable and on the same level as private killings.
Rehabilitation and Other Options
The rehabilitation option is suitable for violent youth, but research has revealed that rehabilitation is effective for young offenders with less violent crimes. Any form of rehabilitation for juvenile murderers has proven to be ineffective and has created further troubles for the society. The risk associated with releasing young offenders with murder charges is too high for the society and it is highly likely that these offenders despite the rehabilitation would cause further commotion in the society (Yeckel, 1997, p. 362).
Therefore, rehabilitation is not an effective solution for either suppressing murders by juveniles, nor is it effective in protecting youth from violent criminal behaviour and actions in the future. Suggesting rehabilitation alone is not an effective tool for making sure crime is suppressed, it is important that rehabilitation is provided in prison as young offenders need to learn the effect of their mistake and how it has changed the life of people in the society.
Alternative Sentencing
Research has proven that public is supportive of capital punishment for juvenile ,murderers, but they prefer alternate sentencing options such as LWOP (life imprisonment without parole) and life imprisonment with work and restitution (Moon, Wright, Cullen, & Pealer, 2000, p. 663). The results of a survey conducted of Tennessee residents have revealed that putting kids to death is supported in the state, especially when kids have committed a first degree murder, but the survey also found that the residents preferred if kids were given a change to make changes to life and understand their mistake. But, the public expects that such opportunities should only be given by ensuring the juvenile spends life in prison and the society is protected from repetition of similar behaviour in future.
Discussion and Evaluation
Need for Punishment
The needs for punishment explained in the summary presents valid points over the effectiveness of punishment to curb future crimes and increase in the number of juvenile murderers. As youth gets aware that committing murder would result in punitive damages, many would restrict their behaviour and ensure that any action does not cause death. It is also possible that having the rule of law for punishment rather than rehabilitation would ensure that kids are more likely to avoid getting into violent confrontations. The research question for further study of the above analysis would be: Are crimes such as juvenile murders restricted due to the presence and knowledge of punishment by rule of law? Does punishing youth for murders reduce the rate of juvenile murders over a period of time?
Avoiding Capital Punishment
The evidence presented for working against capital punishments provides effective grounds for the court to ensure that moral decency is obliged and children are not executed. Rather, other forms of punishments are implemented that does not end human life. Execution of Juvenile murderers does not bode well with many in the society and alternate punishments are proposed to protect human life. Simply put, Capital punishments are not a form of punishment; rather it is an order of execution that would not provide the deceased any form of justice. The predicament discussed leaves several loose ends and does not relate with the values of many in the public, who openly support capital punishment when a juvenile has committed first degree murder. It leaves research areas and questions open for exploration such as the inefficiency of capital punishment on youth.
Rehabilitation and Other Alternatives
The summary clarifies that rehabilitation is not an effective means to suppress and curb juvenile murders and more effective means are necessary for protecting and regulating the society. Rehabilitation of juvenile murderers without jail time provides a problem to the society and the chances of them repeating their past behaviour is increased. It is quite obvious as juvenile murderers are not taught the moral lesson and given a perception that their behaviour and crime is accepted behaviour. Therefore, capital punishment is indecent and immoral, whereas rehabilitation is too risky for the society. Therefore, research questions that can be pondered upon would be related to failure of rehabilitation to supress youth violence and juvenile murderers. Also, it provides an option to explore the efficiencies of jail time to restrict juvenile murderers.
Alternative Sentencing
The most accepted form of punishment for juvenile murderers to the society is life imprisonment as it respects human life and ensures that society is protected from similar activities and crimes. Punishments such as life imprisonment without parole get the highest support from the society, as it provides justice to the level of crime committed, and provides an opportunity to the young offender to reminisce on the mistake made for a large part of his/her life. It is easy to get behind the life imprisonment sentence as it provides moral punishment and avoids immoral sentencing at the same time. The research areas that can be explored in related to life imprisonment are the efficiency of such punishment in reducing crimes and rate of juvenile murderers and the success rate of life imprisonment over other methods. Another area to explore is the cause of support for life imprisonment from the society.
Conclusion
The research provides society’s opinion on methods of punishing juvenile murderers and the cause of their opinion. Methods such as rehabilitation are completely shunned as it is considered as too risky to the society. Whereas, other methods such as capital punishments is treated as too indecent and immoral, as it takes away human life without teaching the murderers the cost of their mistake. The literature clarifies that majority of the society supports the implementation of life imprisonment without parole and life imprisonment with work and restitution, as they ensure safety and remain within the boundaries of morality and decency. The literature provides evidence for supporting life imprisonment over capital punishment and rehabilitation, but it does provide efficiency of such system. This can be one of the areas to explore in further study related to punishing child murderers.
References
Eigen., J.P. (1981). Punishing Youth Homicide Offenders in Philadelphia. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72(3), 1072-1093.
Levitt., S.D. (September 1997). Juvenile Crime and Punishment. Retrieved 22 May 2016 from, http://www.nber.org/papers/w6191.pdf
Moon, M. M., Wright, J. P., Cullen, F. T., & Pealer, J. A. (2000). Putting kids to death: Specifying public support for juvenile capital punishment. Justice Quarterly, 17(4), 663-684. doi:10.1080/07418820000094711
Streib, V. L. (1996). The Eighth Amendment and Capital Punishment of Juveniles. Cleveland State Law Review, 34, 363-399.
Varone., L.A. (1986). The Decency of Capital Punishment for Minors: Contemporary Standards and the Dignity of Juveniles. Indiana Law Journal. 61(4). 757-791.
Yeckel, J. F. (1997). Violent Juvenile Offenders: Rethinking Federal Intervention in Juvenile Justice. Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, 51, 331-362.
