When the U.S. Supreme Court banned the death penal­ty for juve­nile offend­ers in 2005 in Roper v. Simmons, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opin­ion for the Court acknowl­edged the inher­ent arbi­trari­ness in select­ing an age cut­off. The qual­i­ties that dis­tin­guish juve­niles from adults do not dis­ap­pear when an indi­vid­ual turns 18,” he wrote. However, a line must be drawn.” New neu­ro­science research sug­gests that the age-18 line may be too low. The court’s opin­ion in Roper found that a nation­al con­sen­sus had devel­oped against sub­ject­ing juve­niles to the death penal­ty based upon behav­ioral evi­dence that juve­niles are less able to under­stand the con­se­quences of their actions, more sus­cep­ti­ble to peer pres­sure, and less able to con­trol their impuls­es. One word miss­ing from the Roper court’s analy­sis of the age-18 death-penal­ty cut­off: brain.” An August 12, 2018 arti­cle for The Marshall Project by Beth Schwartzapfel explores the judi­cial sys­tem’s response to new neu­ro­log­i­cal research on brain devel­op­ment and whether 18 is the most appro­pri­ate age of eli­gi­bil­i­ty for the harsh­est sen­tences, includ­ing the death penal­ty and manda­to­ry life with­out parole. Brain research now clear­ly demon­strates that those por­tions of the brain that reg­u­late impulse con­trol and deci­sion-mak­ing do not ful­ly mature until well into a per­son­’s 20s, and defense lawyers have begun to argue that the same lim­i­ta­tions on extreme pun­ish­ments applic­a­ble to juve­niles should apply to youth­ful offend­ers in late ado­les­cence,” between the ages of 18 and 21. Brain research by Temple University psy­chol­o­gy pro­fes­sor Laurence Steinberg (pic­tured), a nation­al expert in ado­les­cent brain devel­op­ment, found that impul­sive thrill-seek­ing and the need for imme­di­ate grat­i­fi­ca­tion peaks in late ado­les­cence around age 19, before declin­ing through an indi­vid­u­al’s 20s. In a 2017 case in which a Kentucky tri­al judge declared the death penal­ty uncon­sti­tu­tion­al for defen­dants charged with com­mit­ting a crime before age 21, Steinberg tes­ti­fied, Knowing what we know now, one could’ve made the very same argu­ments about 18‑, 19- and 20-year-olds that were made about 16- and 17-year-olds in Roper.” Judge Ernesto Scorsone agreed, writ­ing, If the sci­ence in 2005 man­dat­ed the rul­ing in Roper, the sci­ence in 2017 man­dates this rul­ing.” On February 5, the American Bar Association House of Delegates vot­ed over­whelm­ing­ly to adopt a res­o­lu­tion call­ing for an end to the death penal­ty for offend­ers who were 21 or younger at the time of the crime. According to a report accom­pa­ny­ing the res­o­lu­tion, there is a grow­ing med­ical con­sen­sus that key areas of the brain rel­e­vant to deci­sion-mak­ing and judg­ment con­tin­ue to devel­op into the ear­ly twen­ties.” In September 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review Ohio death-row pris­on­er Gary Otte’s claim that the death sen­tence was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly imposed in his case because he was only 20 years old at the time of the offense. Otte was exe­cut­ed September 132017.

(Beth Schwartzapfel, The Right Age to Die?, The Marshall Project, August 12, 2018.) See Juveniles.

Citation Guide