Concorde (NH) Monitor

April 222004

Editorial

A civ­i­lized soci­ety does not kill chil­dren, not even chil­dren who’ve killed.

According to Amnesty International, the United States has exe­cut­ed more juve­niles over the past decade than all oth­er nations com­bined. Of the 22 American chil­dren exe­cut­ed for their crimes since the death penal­ty was rein­stat­ed in 1976, 13 were put to death in Texas. Virginia (three), Oklahoma (two) and Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Missouri (one each) account­ed for the rest.

New Hampshire, to its cred­it, is not on that list. Today, by pass­ing Senate Bill 513, the House will have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to affirm that it won’t be. It should do so.

Although it may legal­ly impose the death penal­ty for sev­er­al seri­ous crimes, New Hampshire has not exe­cut­ed any­one since 1939. But the state is one of only 19 that allow any­one over 17 to be charged with a cap­i­tal crime and put to death.

A bill passed by a 12 – 11 vote of the Senate ear­li­er this year would raise the age of cul­pa­bil­i­ty for a cap­i­tal crime to 18. The change would not mean that young mur­der­ers must be tried in juve­nile court. The law allows offend­ers as young as 13 to be cer­ti­fied as adults. But it does mean that the harsh­est penal­ty a juve­nile could face would be a sen­tence of life in prison with no hope of parole. That’s the same penal­ty that now applies in first-degree mur­der cas­es.

The bill also clears up an ambi­gu­i­ty in exist­ing law by adding the words at the time the offense was com­mit­ted.” The change elim­i­nates the pos­si­bil­i­ty that an adult could be exe­cut­ed for a crime com­mit­ted while a child but not pros­e­cut­ed until years lat­er.

Whatever one’s views on the death penal­ty — we oppose it in all cas­es ‑there are sound rea­sons for for­bid­ding the exe­cu­tion of juve­niles. A large body of law exists to pro­tect peo­ple under 18 on grounds that juve­niles lack the emo­tion­al or men­tal matu­ri­ty to make many cru­cial deci­sions. Youth would, of course, dis­agree, and the excep­tions to that gen­er­al rule are many. Yet soci­ety does not grant those under 18:

  • The right to vote or to serve on a jury.
  • The right to pur­chase tobac­co or alco­hol or for that mat­ter, a Playboy magazine.
  • The abil­i­ty to work a haz­ardous job, fight in com­bat or enter a binding contract.
  • The abil­i­ty to mar­ry with­out parental con­sent (except in Mississippi, where the age is 17 for boys and 15 for girls).

That vast body of law rec­og­nizes that juve­niles are, by rights, held to a low­er stan­dard of respon­si­bil­i­ty than adults. Yet the rule is breached when chil­dren are forced to face the ulti­mate sanc­tion for their actions.

In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled — wrong­ly — that states do have the author­i­ty to exe­cute 16 and 17-year-old offend­ers. Fortunately, soci­ety con­tin­ues to evolve. Contemporary com­mu­ni­ty stan­dards — the mir­ror in which soci­ety sees both itself and what it seeks to become — have changed. There are, as the Eighth Amendment rec­og­nizes, evolv­ing stan­dards of decen­cy,” and the pub­lic, by more than a two-thirds mar­gin, now strong­ly oppos­es the exe­cu­tion of chil­dren no mat­ter how heinous their crimes.

Part of that change in atti­tude has come with a bet­ter under­stand­ing of the link between ado­les­cent brain devel­op­ment and matu­ri­ty. No mat­ter how bright they might be, the brains of young peo­ple, and their abil­i­ty to rea­son and con­trol impuls­es, are not ful­ly formed.

Society rec­og­nizes that by hold­ing juve­niles up to dif­fer­ent stan­dards in most aspects of life. It should do the same when it comes to capital punishment.

Sources

Concorde (NH) Monitor