American Psychological Association Overwhelmingly Votes to Adopt Resolution Opposing Death Penalty for Adolescents Aged 18 – 20

The American Psychological Association (APA) has over­whelm­ing­ly adopt­ed a res­o­lu­tion call­ing for courts and leg­is­la­tors to ban the use of the death penal­ty against peo­ple charged with com­mit­ting crimes while they were under age 21. Saying that ​“the same sci­en­tif­ic and soci­etal rea­sons” that led the U.S. Supreme Court to bar cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment for offend­ers younger than age 18 also ​“apply to the late ado­les­cent class,” the APA, the nation’s largest pro­fes­sion­al orga­ni­za­tion of psy­chol­o­gists, vot­ed 161 to 7, with 1 absten­tion, to for­mal­ly oppose the death penal­ty for indi­vid­u­als aged 18 – 20.

The res­o­lu­tion, adopt­ed on August 3, 2022, calls the use the death penal­ty by a devel­oped soci­ety against late ado­les­cent offend­ers ​“unre­li­able and moral­ly abhor­rent.” The res­o­lu­tion empha­sizes that ​“the brains of 18- to 20-year-olds are con­tin­u­ing to devel­op in key brain sys­tems relat­ed to high­er-order exec­u­tive func­tions and self-con­trol, such as plan­ning ahead, weigh­ing con­se­quences of behav­ior, and emo­tion­al reg­u­la­tion.” The brain devel­op­ment of late ado­les­cents, the psy­chol­o­gists say ​“can­not be dis­tin­guished reli­ably from that of 17-year-olds with regard to these key brain systems.”

The APA res­o­lu­tion also notes that ​“Black youth are pun­ished more harsh­ly than Whites” and that ​“it is clear death as a penal­ty is not applied equal­ly and fair­ly among mem­bers of the late adolescent class.”

“[E]xtraneous fac­tors such as race, eth­nic­i­ty, and gen­der (of both the defen­dant and the vic­tim) influ­ence the dis­cre­tionary deci­sions of pros­e­cu­tors to seek and their suc­cess in obtain­ing death ver­dicts for defen­dants who are mem­bers of the late ado­les­cent class,” the res­o­lu­tion says. ​“When con­sid­ered in con­junc­tion with neu­ro­sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence of the degree of con­tin­u­ing devel­op­ment of key brain sys­tems that remains to be accom­plished in the late ado­les­cent class, these and oth­er sta­tus vari­ables act to cre­ate bias­es and prej­u­dices that lead to a high­er prob­a­bil­i­ty of error by tri­ers of fact in death penalty cases.”

Drawing on find­ings from the Society for Black Neuropsychology, the Hispanic Neuropsychological Society, and the Asian Neuropsychological Association, the APA not­ed that racial bias influ­ences out­comes in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem, such as con­vic­tion rates, wrong­ful con­vic­tions, and lev­els of pun­ish­ment. Black youth, includ­ing Black youth aged 18 – 20, are more like­ly to be per­ceived incor­rect­ly as old­er and more respon­si­ble in criminal proceedings.

In the res­o­lu­tion, the APA declared that the ratio­nale behind the land­mark 2005 U.S. Supreme Court Roper v. Simmons deci­sion should apply to those old­er than 17. In Roper, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for­bid the exe­cu­tion of offend­ers who were younger than age 18 when the crime occurred. In the 5 – 4 deci­sion, the Court reaf­firmed the neces­si­ty of refer­ring to ​“the evolv­ing stan­dards of decen­cy that mark the progress of a matur­ing soci­ety” to deter­mine which pun­ish­ments are so dis­pro­por­tion­ate as to be cru­el and unusual. 

APA sub­mit­ted an ami­cus curi­ae brief that the court cit­ed in com­ing to its deci­sion. In the years since, more research has been con­duct­ed, expand­ing the sci­en­tif­ic under­stand­ing of brain devel­op­ment in peo­ple aged 18 – 20, says the res­o­lu­tion. Extensive research has shown that there is exten­sive devel­op­ment of exec­u­tive con­trol sys­tems, includ­ing the pre­frontal cor­tex, beyond the age of 20, accord­ing to the APA. These brain sys­tems are impli­cat­ed in legal pro­ceed­ings because of their role in deci­sion-mak­ing and understanding consequences.

“[I]n the con­text of cap­i­tal cas­es where death is a poten­tial penal­ty, which typ­i­cal­ly involve crimes that have occurred in sit­u­a­tions of high emo­tion­al arousal, it is espe­cial­ly note­wor­thy that cur­rent devel­op­men­tal sci­ence doc­u­ments that dur­ing emo­tion­al­ly arous­ing sit­u­a­tions, this late ado­les­cent class responds more like younger ado­les­cents than like adults (Figner et al., 2009; Cohen et al., 2016; Steinberg et al., 2008; Icenogle et al., 2019) though — like younger ado­les­cents — show cog­ni­tive capac­i­ty sim­i­lar to adults when not under pres­sure or height­ened emo­tion­al arousal (Figner et al., 2009; Icenogle et al., 2019; Steinberg et al., 2008),” reads the resolution.