Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:59:00.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Science and the juvenile death penalty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2009

By
David Fassler  and
Stephen K. Harper
Edited by
Carol L. Kessler  and
Louis James Kraus
David Fassler
Affiliation:
Otter Creek Associates 86 Lake Street Burlington, VT 05401 USA
Stephen K. Harper
Affiliation:
1320 N.W. 14th Street Miami, FL 33125 USA
Carol L. Kessler
Affiliation:
Columbia University, New York
Louis James Kraus
Affiliation:
Rush University, Chicago
Get access

Summary

Introduction

On March 1, 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled that executing those who were under the age of 18, at the time of the crime, had become “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution (Roper v. Simmons, 125 S.Ct. 1183 [2005]). There has been criticism, by some, of the Court's legal reasoning in coming to that decision (e.g., so-called “judicial activism,” incorrect Eighth Amendment analysis, improper consideration of foreign law). However, few have argued with Justice Kennedy's conclusion as to the “diminished culpability of juveniles.” (Simmons, 2005, p. 1196). Adolescents are simply not as responsible as fully formed adults who commit similar crimes.

The Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment analysis in death penalty cases is based on two principles. The first, a fundamentally legal one, is whether “standards of decency” have evolved to the point where there is now national consensus that a particular form of punishment has become cruel and unusual. A second issue the Court has to address is whether the constitutionally legitimate purposes of the death penalty – retribution and deterrence – are applicable to this particular group of offenders. In coming to a conclusion regarding the level of culpability, and therefore the appropriate punishment, for 16- and 17-year-old offenders, the Court had to look outside the law and to science.

Keywords

Eighth Amendment analysisjuvenile death penaltylegal culpabilitysciencestandards of decencySupreme Court
Type
Chapter
Information
The Mental Health Needs of Young Offenders
Forging Paths toward Reintegration and Rehabilitation
 , pp. 241 - 254
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ABA website. AMA amicus. www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/ama.pdf.
ABA website. APA amicus. www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/apa.pdf.
ABA website. Child Advocates amicus. www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/childad.pdf.
APA (2004). Diminished responsibility in capital sentencing. Position statement. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Atkins v. Virginia, 122 S.Ct. 2242 (2002).
Baird, A. A., Gruber, S., Fein, D.et al. (1999). Functional magnetic resonance imaging of facial affect recognition in children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(2), 195–199.Google Scholar
Banner, S. (2002) The Death Penalty: An American History. Harvard University Press.
Brown v. The Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Debakan, A. S. & Sadowsky, D. (1978). Changes in brain weight during the span of human life. Annals of Neurology, 4, 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 410 (1982).
Fagan, J. & West, V. (2005). The decline of the juvenile death penalty: scientific evidence of evolving norms. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 427–501.Google Scholar
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O.et al. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 861–863.Google Scholar
Gur, R. C. (2002). Declaration of Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D., Patterson v. Texas. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to US Supreme Court, J. Gary Hart, Counsel. (Online at http://www/abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Gur%20affidavit.pdf).
Huttenlocher, P. R. (1979). Synaptic density in human frontal cortex: developmental changes and effects of age. Brain Research, 163, 195–205.Google Scholar
Jernigan, T. L. & Tallal, P. (1990). Late childhood changes in brain morphology observable with MRI. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 32, 379–385.Google Scholar
Lewis, D., Yeager, C., Blake, P., Bard, B. & Strenzoik, M. (2004). Neuropsychiatric, neuropsychological, educational, and family characteristics of 18 juvenile offenders awaiting execution in Texas. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 32, 408–429.Google Scholar
Matsuzawa, J., Matsui, M., Konishi, T.et al. (2001). Age-related volumetric changes of brain gray and white matter in healthy infants and children. Cerebral Cortex, 11(4), 335–342.Google Scholar
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).
Pfefferbaum, A., Mathalon, D. H., Sullivan, E. V.et al. (1994). A quantitative magnetic resonance imaging study of changes in brain morphology from infancy to late adulthood. Archives of Neurology, 51, 874–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PHR website (2004). Former US Surgeons General and more than 400 child health professionals call for an end to the juvenile death penalty. www.physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/news-2004-07-19.html. July 19, 2004.
Roper v. Simmons, 125 S.Ct. 1183 (2005).
Sowell, E. R., Thompson, P. M., Holmes, C. J.et al. (1999) In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10): 859–861.Google Scholar
Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989).
State ex rel. Simmons v. Roper, 112 S.W. 3rd, 397 (2003).
Steinberg, L. & Scott, E. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist, 58(12), 1009–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streib, V. (2004). Death Penalty Today: Death Sentences and Executions for Juvenile Crimes. www.law.onu.eud/faculty/streib/documents/JuvDeathDec2004.pdf
Thatcher, R. W. (1991). Maturation of the human frontal lobes: physiological evidence for staging. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7, 397–419.Google Scholar
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988).
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).
Yakovlev, P. I. & Lecours, A. R. (1967). The myelogenetic cycles of regional maturation if the brain. In: Regional Development of the Brain in Early Life, Minowski, A., ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell, pp. 3–65.
Yurgelun-Todd, D., Gruber, S., Kanayama, G.et al. (2000). fMRI during affect discrimination in bipolar affective disorder, Bipolar Disorders, 2(3.2), 237–248.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×