Heavy revision of the following 3 essays and write a Portfolio for where essays improved.

Should the U.S. Impose the Death Penalty on Juvenile Offenders?

As the United States moved toward tough on crime policy, the imposition of the death penalty as punishment for juvenile offender fuels debate. Proponents of the death penalty posit that it is an effective way to deter crimes, as the number of crimes committed by teenagers is skyrocketing. On the other hand, more scholars support that adolescents should not be punished with the death penalty because they are capable of reform. To conclude after careful examination of the literature, the death penalty is considered to be inconsistent with the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution and the existing international law, thus the death penalty should not be imposed on juvenile offenders.

The Present Stand of United States regarding Capital Punishment

The UN General Assembly enacted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, which basically set an international standard, with regard to the imposition of the death penalty. Article 3 of the said law provides that every person, regardless of race, sex, age, has the right to live, to be free, and to be secure of their person (The United Nations art. 3). This is complemented by Article 5 of the same law, which prohibits the imposition of degrading, inhumane, and cruel punishment (The United Nations art. 5). Under those circumstances, teenage death penalty raises an international issue, because the imposition of capital punishment itself, without regard to the age of the offenders, violates the international obligation of any country to respect human rights.

Death penalty first comes up in Eighteenth-Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon which only has one way to punish those who break the law--death (Part I: History...Death Penalty). The United States has a long history of imposing the death penalty as a way to enforce justice, and Britain has the most influence on the U.S. death penalty than any other country, the first recorded execution is in 1608 in Virginia. However, many 20th century countries have abolished capital punishment, six states of America have decided to abolish the death penalty, and three states in America have limited the death penalty in some first-degree murder and murder officers(Part I: History...Death Penalty).

This is despite the presence of long-standing division of views and opinions, between and among various domestic and international groups on whether the death penalty constitutes unusual and cruel punishment. However, it is undeniable that many people still regard the death penalty as an appropriate punishment, at least for serious or heinous crimes. As a response to international criticism, the United States stated that the humanitarian issue could be superseded by a more relevant issue – the victim’s humanitarian rights curtailed by the perpetrators of the crime (Schabas 32). For this reason, the US adopts a system, where the federal and the state governments can impose within their jurisdictions the death penalty. However, there are specific restrictions with respect to the imposition of the death penalty, given the protection extended by the Eighth Amendment.

The first case that involved juvenile death penalty was explored in the case Kent v United States, in which the perpetrator was arrested on housebreaking, robbery, and rape, and he was only 16 years old (383 U.S. 541, 1966). While the Court acknowledged certain rights of the accused juvenile, it still ruled that they were liable for the same punishment as adults, even the death penalty. A more recent case, Roper v Simmons, in 1993, the 17-year-old Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death, but his defense lawyer appealed the decision for nine years until 2002 (125 S. Ct. 1183, 2005). This case challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty for teenagers. The Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the imposition of an unusual and cruel punishment that fails to consider the degree of culpability of the accused, which include those excessive and not proportioned to the committed offense (Scott 547). Therefore, this case means that the death penalty for juvenile offenders may be justified, only if it is consistent with the criminal responsibility and the nature of the committed offense of the accused.

Teenage Death Penalty from Point of View of Proponents

The current criminal justice system in the United States adheres to a strict criminal policy. It is designed to punish rather than rehabilitate offenders. This policy has made the United States have the largest number of prisoners (Shahani 446). A substantial number of these prisoners are juvenile offenders. In a recent survey, adolescents accounted for almost half of the total police contact. These prisoners consume fiscal expenditures that the government would otherwise have spent on social welfare. As a result, some policymakers are pushing for tougher policies, such as the death penalty for adolescents.

Moreover，proponents of the death penalty believed that it is an effective means to deter criminality among juvenile offenders (Feleke 332). The death penalty is a great deterrent to those who want to commit crimes. They will not break the law because of fear. They know that waiting for them will no longer be a prison sentence but death. Consequently, it is an appropriate punishment to ensure public safety. This is consistent with the “tough on crime” policy of the United States, which perceives incarceration as an avenue to punish offenders. Moreover, proponents argued that it should only be given to juvenile offenders who committed serious crimes (Wilson 2). In other words, the imposition of this penalty must be morally proportional to the offender’s culpability. However, there is no evidence proving that being tough to juvenile offenders deter criminality. In fact, institutional confinements only provide for a new venue to continue the misdemeanor of juvenile offenders; hence, being tough worsens youth delinquency. Thus, the death penalty is ineffective in attaining the goal of our criminal justice system.

Why Teenage Death Penalty should not be Allowed

The death penalty should not be imposed on adolescents because it violates the Constitution. Specifically, the Eighth Amendment prohibits unusual and cruel punishment, including the death penalty. Some scholars also deemed that the death penalty is an affront to the decent standard of civilization (Scott 548). For example, a criminal who is under the age of sixteen at the time of the crime is considered punishable as an adult. Therefore, imposing the death penalty is an improper way of retribution.

At the psychological level, imprisonment has a harsher effect on juvenile offenders (Feleke 332). This means that severe punishments like the death penalty are an inappropriate remedy for the criminal justice system. Many teenagers commit crimes because they are affected by their family and environment. Records revealed that juvenile prisoners on death row have an unstable background (Mallett 5). Most of these criminals have parents who have drug and mental illness histories and they follow suit. This view points out that adolescents are victims of this dysfunctional family structure. If young people are provided with a good living environment and a healthy family model, they are more likely to stop committing crimes. Therefore, they should not be punished but rehabilitated.

Some scholars also posit that the severe criminal policy of the current criminal justice system has failed to address its main objective of deterring crimes. In fact, the number of prisoners in the country has grown at an unprecedented rate in the past three decades. Furthermore, strict criminal policies often lead to wrong convictions (Wilson 2). The reasons for the increase in the number of criminals could be rooted in legal injustice or an excessive gap between the rich and the poor. Accordingly, if this policy applies to juvenile offenders, many adolescents may be victims of wrongdoing because they feel inferior.

Lastly, the death penalty is inconsistent with the primary objectives of the juvenile justice system, and the juvenile justice system should emphasize rehabilitation rather than punishment. This is founded on the patriarchal production of the state. The state should replace the parents of children who cannot directly control their children. The parents' misconduct and wrong choices affect their children, and these parents should also be punished rather than just the teenagers. In addition, because of age, youths lack judgment and self-control and it also means that they are moldable. Consequently, young people may be committed to reforming or juvenile halls, instead of bringing them into jail or even imposing the death penalty. In fact, most American citizens are in favor of alternative punishment for the death penalty (Mallett 5). In the case of juvenile offenders, the criminal justice system should pay more attention to community services, restitution programs, drug treatment, and employment. Hence, instead of pursuing to expand the use of incarceration, punishment policies of the United States should be geared toward the goals of punishing but at the same time rehabilitating these youth offenders.

Rehabilitation over Punishment

In addition to the inhumane system of pursuing such a stern criminal policy, it also proves a positive relationship with recidivism. This may be people who have criminal records find it hard to be reintegrated in their community. Those who have criminal records are less likely to be hired in labor because most employers conduct a background check of their applicants before hiring them (Pager 938). The criminal records of these juvenile offenders often close the door to employment opportunities. Therefore, they tend to commit a crime again because their criminal record rebranded them as a dangerous class of society and forced them to go back to crime for their livelihood. Thus, to resolve the issue of recidivism, the country may emulate the case of Norway.

In Norway, offenders are perceived as individuals who committed the offense but capable of rehabilitating themselves. This helps criminals to return to society again. They will no longer be special, and they will find suitable jobs and form their own happy families. In consequence, the main purpose of the criminal justice of Norway is not punishment but rehabilitation. They believe in the normalization principle of standardization, which the main object is to give programs to individuals who are released from prison, so that they may be able to be reintegrated in the community. As a result of this policy, Norway became one of the countries having the least number of recidivism in the world (Shahani 448). Thus, the criminal justice system should give work programs, instead of spending a large budget for building incarceration cells for youth offenders.

There are various reasons why the current criminal justice should consider providing for work programs for the juvenile offender, rather than imposing the death penalty. First, work generates income. As a result, it enables young offenders to not only provide financial assistance to their families but also to provide financial assistance to their social networks. At the community level, giving them the opportunity to work also leads to an increase in the service and demand for goods in their respective communities. This is because when they become part of the workforce, they become consumers and taxpayers.

At the individual level, their employment, even for apprenticeships, can reduce the risk of recidivism. Finding a job requires employees to have the right attitudes and skills needed for the job. They spent time learning these skills and changing their life attitudes and life goals. As a consequence, once a former prisoner commits to employment, he will learn to follow a certain schedule, work with colleagues, and start setting his long-term goals. They will work hard for their new goals, not to commit crimes again to undermine the return to a good life. In other words, committing to legal work prevents them from committing crimes. This assurance enhances the safety of the public.

Conclusion

All in all, proponents of the teenage death penalty argue the need to resort to the harsher penalty to deter crime. On the other hand, critics of this policy anchored their arguments on different frameworks, such as evidence of legal, psychological and the proof of the failure of “tough on crime” policy. After careful consideration, the death penalty should not be imposed on adolescents. The main argument of the proponent of the death penalty is that it can curb crime because the country has never solved the growing problem of high crime rates. Therefore, it failed to convince the researchers. What is more, the evidence presented by the death penalty critics is more compelling, as it studies the issue of juvenile delinquency on different shots. It helps people to understand the growing problem of juvenile delinquency and provides a viable way on how to approach these juvenile offenders. Moreover, the use of the death penalty violates international treaties because it does not take into account the protocols required by the international community. The status of the United States in the international community in its diplomatic relations is influenced by the various positions in which the countries of the country adopt the death penalty. The partiality of the death penalty sometimes forces the United States to violate its ideals.

Works Cited

Feleke, Nuruye. “The Practice of US Execution of Juvenile Delinquents in Dated Times Vis-À-Vis International Human Rights Laws and Case Laws. Beijing Law Review, vol. 6, 2015, pp. 331-339.

Mallett, Chris. Socio-Historical Analysis of Juvenile Offenders on Death Row. Criminal Law Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 4, 2003, pp. 455-468.

Pager, Devah. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology, 108 (5), 2003, 937-975.

“Part I: History of the Death Penalty.” Death Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-i-history-death-penalty .

Schabas, William. “International Law, the United States of America and Capital Punishment,” Suffolk Transnational Law Review 31, 2008, 32-45.

Scott, Charles. “Roper v. Simmons: Can Juvenile Offenders be Executed?” Journal of American Academy Psychiatry Law, vol. 33, 2005, pp. 547-552.

Shahani, Ava. “The Time does not Fit the Crime: Eliminating Mandatory Minimums for Nonviolent Drug Offenders in Favor of Judicial Discretion.” Southwestern Journal of International Law, vol. 23, 2017, pp. 445-467.

The United Nations. Universal Declarations of Human Rights, 1948.

Wilson, John. Juvenile and the Death Penalty. US Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000.

Cited Cases:

Kent v United States, 383 U.S. 541, 1966.

Ropper v Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 2005.