Basis of opinions
The presented case was argued on 13th October, 2004 where the constitutionality of capital punishments for juveniles was challenged through an appeal. The basis of the argument of the Eighth Amendment as it is related to unusual and cruel punishments for crimes committed by individuals (Lane, 2005). The decision of the Supreme Court in 1988 under Thompson v. Oklahoma was to bar the execution of offenders who are below 16 years. Another case was heard in 1989; Stanford v. Kentucky, which indicated the possibility of having capital punishments rendered to individuals below 17 years.
Based on the evolving standards of decency, the court argued that it should be considered unusual and cruel to render execution punishments for people who are below the age of 18. Further, scientific and sociological research indicates that juveniles do not have the sense of responsibility and maturity as compared to adults. Furthermore, states have prohibited individuals under 18 years from serving on juries, voting, and marrying without the consent of the parents because of irresponsibility and immaturity. In addition, juveniles cannot be able to escape criminogenic setting because they face a lot of outside pressures, negative influences, and lack self-control. The court also focused on the national consensus in the area of capital punishment for the juveniles. As such, it had to support the arguments for capital punishment for this population and hold practices, which are exercised in other countries. These are the reduction of capital punishments, and the abolishment of death penalties for people under 18 years.
Dissent
The opinion of the dissent asked the question whether there was a national consensus, which was established among the states as it relates to the death penalty of the juveniles. Further, was the action taken against the defendant unusual and cruel? As such, the court should take guidelines as based on these understandings. The court was not obliged to use the foreign law when delivering the judgment. Such is because the restrictive measures, which are taken by international laws are different among the states. Hence, the foreign law should not be applied in the process of constitution interpretation.
The opinion of the majority was also considered to be antidemocratic. As such, the judiciary has the moral responsibility of ensuring that the interpretation of the law is based on the constitutional scheme, which is developed by the democratically selected legislatures (Massey, 2006). Therefore, the ruling of the court should be in accordance with the arguments about the law, and not what is expected to be contained in the law. Moreover, unelected lawyers do not have the rights of discerning moral values, or imposing such values to people on the basis of flexible reading of the constitution.
Implications
A key implication of the court ruling was the change in the policy of death penalty for the minors. As such, the decision of the court contributed towards the cancellation of 72 other crimes, which had been committed by individuals below 18 years. Another implication is the need for the change of the controversies, which exists in the area of constitutional jurisprudence (Bouffard & Piquero, 2010). Such includes the evolving national consensus and foreign laws. Thus, the evidence of national consensus is put at question for the judiciary to revisit.
Further, the interpretation and the role of the foreign laws in the constitution of the United States was put into question. It is anticipated that the constitution should play an active role in solving social problems, which exist among individuals. Hence, resolutions should be developed to advise the courts on how to engage in meaningful constitutional behavior.
Death for juveniles
Yes, juveniles should be put to death. Such is because there is no way that crime is categorized as a young crime or adult crime. Hence, when the young people commit crime, they should be punished in equal measures as adults who would have committed such a crime. Critics argue that juveniles are immature. It becomes unclear how a person who is 19 years more mature than a person who is 18 years in the area of crime.
The young people should follow what their elders teach them in society. When these individuals engage in crime, such is a clear indication that they are un-teachable elements, which should face the full force of the law (Widom, 1992). Young people know and understand what is wrong and right in an equal manner as an adult person in society. Therefore, there should be no bias in terms of the application of the force of law among individuals.
If a person is capable of engaging in murder, such an individual is also eligible for a capital punishment. Thus, if a juvenile can make a choice to kill, such a person is also aware of the repercussions of such an action. Hence, the juveniles should be ready to be put under the death penalty for their actions.
Young gangsters are worse than those that are composed of the adults. If the young people are aware that once they engage in murder they would be executed, the crime rate in society would decrease significantly. Further, it is better to cut the root cause of the problem at an early stage instead of waiting for the tree to grow to such levels where it becomes problematic in society. Indicating to these young people that they will face the rule of law because of their criminal behavior will deter them from being confused by the adult criminals to engage in criminal activities in society. Such would also help in molding their behavior in the community.
In schools, teachers often report several cases of bullying among the young people. Letting these individuals to learn how to engage in such uncouth behavior in society is a way of creating a social problem (Bartol, 1999). Thus, the young should be prepared and informed that they will receive equal punishments to the level and magnitude of their crimes as it does for the adults in society. The outcome of this is having a young population, which respects the elderly and other social members effectively. Such a population is also aware of the negative impact of crime and focuses on avoiding on engaging in criminal behavior in society.
Credibility of the resources
The level of credibility of the resources, which was used in the study was evaluated by establishing that they are peer reviewed journals. As such, the information in these sources is authorized for publication and use in support of research in the area of criminal justice. Further, such resources are examined to establish whether they contain relevant information, which is related to the area of the research.
References
Bartol, C. (1999). Criminal behavior: A psychosocial approach. USA: Prentice Hall.
Bouffard, L. A., & Piquero, N. L. (2010). Defiance theory and life course explanations of
persistent offending. Crime & Delinquency, 56(2), 227-252
Lane, C. (March 2, 2005) 5-4 Supreme Court Abolishes Juvenile Executions The Washington
Post, p. A01.
Massey, H. (2006), "Disposing of Children: The Eighth Amendment and Juvenile Life without
Parole after Roper", Boston College Law Review 47: 1083
Widom, C. (1992). The cycle of violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National
