Posted: July 9th, 2022

Juvenile Death Penalty

For this class, choose one of the following topics, research it, and then write about it.

-Compare and Contrast the Rehabilitation and Punishment models of Juvenile Justice
-Define and Critique the Graduated System of Sanctions for Juvenile Criminals
-Argue for or against Juveniles receiving the Death Penalty

Your paper must be in APA style, including:
-Title Page
-Not less than five full pages of content nor more than seven pages of content
-Fully referenced in APA Style, to include in-text citations matched to references on the -Reference Page
-No less than five references nor more than ten references
—

Juvenile Death Penalty
A death penalty is a form of execution carried upon an offender, found guilty of capital crimes such as murder, treason, and homicide, among others. These crimes, however, vary from country to another, depending on the existing laws that rule the land. Over the years, there has been constant debate over whether citizens under the age of 18 years should be executed for capital crimes. However, different points of view call for different arguments regarding the subject matter. This paper aims to explore why the Juvenile death penalty is wrong and, therefore, should be illegalized as it does not make any significant change in improving the overall security.
The juvenile death penalty is wrong as it violates human rights and goes contrary to the international bill of rights. All individuals have the right to live, and the judiciary should, therefore, ensure that the existing laws on this matter are upheld and protected. Executing juveniles by the judiciary would be acting contrary to the constitutional rights in which it is supposedly meant to protect. Even though crimes like murder result in the death of the victim, killing the offender would not bring any solution to the problem other than adding more deaths to the situation. In most cases, juveniles have a high chance of changing by reviewing their lives if the opportunity presented itself. It is, therefore, convenient to create such an environment for such children to facilitate change other than passing rulings to end their lives. Since juveniles are still in their early development stages in life, they have higher chances of changing as compared to adults. According to Piquero et al. (2010), most juveniles stand a higher chance of changing and becoming better persons if rehabilitation opportunities are formally presented to them. The author’s argument in the article reinforces research from multiple medical studies that have confirmed that children who are still undergoing mental development can grasp new ideas faster and change if proper conditions are put into place as compared to adults. In this case, the juvenile death penalty is not the best option to consider when dealing with underage offenders. Such a decision would work best as it corrects a vice using its opposite, which brings in harmony, instead of solving death by using death, the very thing humanity should be working to overcome. The juvenile penalty is, therefore, not the best approach when dealing with underage offenders.
The juvenile death penalty does not bring justice and the rule of law, which are the fundamental pillars of law and order in any society. When dealing with juveniles, a dilemma usually arises as to whether the responsibility lies solely on the guardian or the offender. Since all societies agree that underage children are still in their development stages with the parents responsible over the basic needs, then it is arguably correct to conclude that parents, too, are responsible for their code of conduct and discipline. A dilemma, therefore, exists as to whether parents should carry the burden of punishment or the juveniles themselves. Consequently, a child might become an offender because of poor parentage, as it has been the issue in many cases. Most juvenile offenders have suffered adverse childhood experiences such as neglect, abuse, or failure from parents to instill discipline to them in their childhood years (Baglivio et al. 2014). Such children grow up with the wrong perception about life and ultimately end up expressing their lack of discipline in their daily activities. Whenever such crimes happen, it becomes challenging to serve justice into its proper perspective as it is not easy to determine the responsible party that should be held accountable. While at one point executing the juvenile would seem unfair without examining the circumstances that lead to their actions, punishing the parents would also be unfair as some children might end up being criminals despite coming from a high disciplinary background. Executing juveniles, therefore, is not right as it does not bring justice to the issue. More emphasis should be made to examine the nature of the environment the juvenile grew up in instead of handing them death sentences.
Death sentences fort juveniles are wrong because underage citizens do not have a deeper understanding of actions and consequences in daily human interactions. Adults, due to their experience, have a better way of understanding actions and consequences better than children. For instance, an adult person, before committing a serious crime like murder, would analyze their lives, and the lives of those who depend on them before doing such a grievous act. Since all these consequences come into play in the mind of an adult, kids usually fail to consider such outcomes as their mental faculties are still in their development stages. Children cannot thoroughly analyze situations using their critical cognitive faculties and determine the best decisions for them. Richards (2011) argues that juvenile offenders are different from adult offenders as they lack mental and intellectual stability to be able to make rational decisions as compared to adults. The prevalence of crime cases among children should, therefore, be reviewed from their mental state of being, to come up with conclusions on the best options available to mitigate the issue of juvenile crime. In this case, juveniles should not be handed capital punishment, such as the death penalty, as they cannot review the consequences for their choices before action. They should instead be giving the benefit of the doubt, owing to their underdeveloped mental faculties. Giving juveniles death sentences would be putting them in the same category as adults, of which the societal standards have exhibited that there is a difference between children and adults. Juveniles should, therefore, be subjected to a different disciplinary system, effective but yet considerable to their development stage, to ensure that they end up becoming responsible persons in the future. Most juveniles, having experienced the consequences of their actions would be more than willing to change; another reason they should not be punished with the death sentence.
Legal bias is prevalent in juvenile cases, especially those related to the death penalty making such ruling unfair, especially to the young offenders. For once, juveniles do not possess the necessary legal understanding to defend themselves legally, especially when pitted against experienced lawyers. The legal language is, by itself, complex and challenging to understand even to mature people, presenting the juvenile with even much more difficulties. Moreover, there have been instances of intimidation from police officers who have compelled juveniles to accept crimes leveled against them. Besides, most juveniles are unaware of their rights and constitutional rights, such as lawyers when standing trial. All these factors pit the young offenders on the wrong side of the judicial arm of government and disadvantage them significantly. According to Feld (2014), there exists a constant struggle between the police officers and the youth in the interrogation room as both parties do not trust each other. The assumption by the police that juveniles are adults has resulted in police using interrogation techniques that might trick the juveniles into making confessions without knowing. In other cases, many police officers have been accused of promising fair rulings to suspects once they consent to charges (Moore& Fitzsimmons, 2011). The complexity of how interrogations must be carried, therefore, is also another problem that fosters legal bias, as clearly explained above, adding to the number of cases where legal bias can ultimately lead to an unfair ruling, primarily when the suspect has been influenced by the interrogators. The juvenile death sentence is, therefore, not the best way to deal with crime, as it does not guarantee honesty and the rule of law, because underage citizens lack the will and the honesty to speak the truth without the influence of external parties.
The juvenile death penalty is a waste of resources that could be dedicated to other pressing issues, such as hiring more judges and prosecutors. Much time spent through consultations and debates on whether a single death penalty should be passed or not, as witnessed in many of such types of rulings. Besides, such rulings call for appeals, which would be necessary if they did not exist in the first place. These appeals add to an existing backlog of cases and wastage of time in the judiciary. In this case, the juvenile death penalty is not the best option to resolve the issue of underage criminal activities. Investing more resources on better correction facilities and rehabilitation centers would be the best option for dealing with crime. Therefore, a special program is what is needed, detailing the steps to be taken on juveniles whenever they commit such crimes. Such a decision would save time and resources spent debating on whether an individual should be executed or spared.
Conclusion
Overall, the issue of the juvenile death penalty is not an ethical practice in society. It has far worse consequences which outweigh the benefits. Juvenile death sentence does not bring justice as underage suspects do not have the cognitive mental capabilities to think in terms of actions and consequences. Juvenile cases are also subject to bias as they can be influenced by interrogators due to their lack of knowledge in legal affairs. Juveniles should, therefore, be enrolled for correction programs that would encourage them to change their ways and review their lives for a better society.

References
Baglivio, M. T., Epps, N., Swartz, K., Huq, M. S., Sheer, A., & Hardt, N. S. (2014). The prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in the lives of juvenile offenders. Journal of juvenile justice, 3(2).
Feld, B. C. (2014). Kids, cops, and confessions: Inside the interrogation room. NYU Press.
Izzo, R. L., & Ross, R. R. (1990). Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents: A brief report. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 134-142.
Moore, T. E., & Fitzsimmons, C. L. (2011). Justice imperiled: False confessions and the Reid technique. Crim. LQ, 57, 509.
Piquero, A. R., Cullen, F. T., Unnever, J. D., Piquero, N. L., & Gordon, J. A. (2010). Never too late: Public optimism about juvenile rehabilitation. Punishment & Society, 12(2), 187-207.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: apps to help with writing assignment, assignment help in Australia, assignment help website, assignment helpers for students, Essay Writing