The case against teen executions

Kentucky Courier- Journal

March 3, 2004

Editorial

By Mark S. Wright, past pres­i­dent, Kentucky Psychiatric Association

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 deter­mined that it was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al to exe­cute the men­tal­ly retard­ed because their ​“dis­abil­i­ties in areas of rea­son­ing, judg­ment and con­trol of their impuls­es” mean ​“they do not act with the lev­el of moral cul­pa­bil­i­ty that char­ac­ter­izes the most seri­ous adult crim­i­nal con­duct.” Even those who sup­port the death penal­ty agree that men­tal­ly retard­ed defen­dants should not be exe­cut­ed because they are not ful­ly aware of the con­se­quences of their actions.

Juveniles are not adults. Recent brain research shows that juve­niles should also be exclud­ed from the death penal­ty for similar reasons.

Juveniles are far less devel­oped than we ever knew, accord­ing to land­mark research. The stud­ies have prompt­ed many in the med­ical, psy­cho­log­i­cal and sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ties to sup­port pro­pos­als that would bar those under the age of 18 from capital punishment.

Those in favor of the death penal­ty for juve­niles argue that 16 and 17 year olds who com­mit adult crimes should be sub­ject to adult penal­ties, includ­ing death. No one is sug­gest­ing that juve­niles who com­mit heinous crimes should not be respon­si­ble for their actions, but recent dis­cov­er­ies on juve­nile devel­op­ment, as report­ed by the Harvard Medical School, chal­lenge the com­mon­ly held view that the brain fin­ish­es devel­op­ment at puberty.

Just as ado­les­cents exhib­it growth spurts, var­i­ous fea­tures of their brains under­go dra­mat­ic changes as well. Frontal cor­tex and the pre­frontal cor­tex, among oth­er parts of the brain, do not devel­op ful­ly until the ear­ly to mid 20s. These are the ​“exec­u­tive” areas of the brain, which, among oth­er things, calm emo­tions, con­trol impuls­es, make deci­sions, process abstract ideas and orga­nize and plan multiple tasks.

Any par­ent of a 16 or 17 year old knows the sig­nif­i­cant lim­its of the judg­ment of their children.

Scientific proof that even nor­mal ado­les­cents are in far less con­trol of their thoughts, impuls­es and action, shows us that they should not be held to the same stan­dard of pun­ish­ment as ful­ly developed adults.

The law rec­og­nizes that kids are dif­fer­ent. The law pro­hibits per­sons under the age of 18 from vot­ing, serv­ing in mil­i­tary com­bat and on juries, mak­ing med­ical deci­sions, enter­ing into con­tracts, mar­ry­ing, leav­ing home, buy­ing cig­a­rettes and drink­ing alco­hol pre­cise­ly because ado­les­cents are less mature than adults.

Doctors oppose the death penal­ty for juve­nile offend­ers. Experts, includ­ing doc­tors, pedi­a­tri­cians, psy­chi­a­trists, and neu­ro­sci­en­tists assert that ado­les­cents are not adults — phys­i­cal­ly, men­tal­ly or emo­tion­al­ly. In recog­ni­tion of his sci­en­tif­ic fact, the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the 40,000-member American Psychiatric Association have all adopt­ed poli­cies specif­i­cal­ly oppos­ing cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment for those under 18.

The med­ical com­mu­ni­ty is not alone. Nationally, sup­port is low for the death penal­ty for juve­niles. Only 26% favor the death penal­ty for juve­niles. A 2002 statewide poll showed that Kentuckians sup­port a bill to elim­i­nate the death penal­ty for 16 and 17 year olds by a 2‑to‑1 margin.

The sen­tenc­ing rec­om­men­da­tion by the jury in the Lee Malvo case is a clear sig­nal that the pub­lic is reluc­tant to con­demn juve­nile offend­ers to death, even for the most hor­ren­dous of crimes. A recent ABC News poll found that 62% of Americans sup­port life in prison over a death sen­tence for a juve­nile offend­er. People under­stand that minors are less cul­pa­ble than adults.

Juries are less will­ing to put young offend­ers to death. In the 1990s, juries sen­tenced more than 10 juve­niles to death each year. In 2003, only 2 minors were sen­tenced to death. The annu­al death-sen­tenc­ing rate for juve­niles has been in decline for 4 years and is now at its low­est point in 14 years.

This sta­tis­ti­cal decline is one of sev­er­al indi­ca­tors that the time has come to abol­ish the prac­tice of sen­tenc­ing to death and exe­cut­ing juve­nile offend­ers. A nation­al con­sen­sus has emerged, with near­ly every major med­ical and legal asso­ci­a­tion, reli­gious denom­i­na­tion, and chil­dren’s group oppos­ing the practice.

28 states and the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment pro­hib­it the exe­cu­tion of juve­nile offend­ers. Of the 21 states that per­mit juve­nile offend­er exe­cu­tions, only 15 have juve­niles on death row, and only 7 have used the pun­ish­ment. A grow­ing num­ber of states are con­sid­er­ing leg­is­la­tion to ban the prac­tice. 7 out of 10 Americans oppose the death penal­ty for juve­nile offend­ers. Nearly every major reli­gious denom­i­na­tion, chil­dren’s group, and legal and med­ical asso­ci­a­tion oppose the practice.

World Consensus. The United States is the only nation in the world that con­tin­ues to car­ry out the exe­cu­tion of juve­nile offend­ers. Iran and Pakistan have both indi­cat­ed that they will no longer car­ry out such executions.

Kentucky should no longer exe­cute juve­niles. In this ses­sion, the Kentucky General Assembly is expect­ed to take up the issue of juve­nile exe­cu­tions. No mat­ter how Kentucky vot­ers feel about the death penal­ty, the state has no busi­ness exe­cut­ing juvenile offenders.