Capital Punishment And Minors
The death penalty is utilized as an optimistic view to alleviate much of
what is
morally, and criminally wrong with our society. Yet in reality,
capital
punishment does nothing to improve America’s justice system by
allegedly
acting as a deterrent to the criminals. Nevertheless, Americans
continue to
execute adults and children on dubious principles. The execution
of children is
particularly outrageous. International and Federal standards
sanction that
children are exempt from the death penalty; not in order to
grant absolution for
their crimes, or to disparage the suffering of the
victim’s family, but in
recognition of their immaturity and potential for
rehabilitation. The cases of
juvenile offenders on America’s death row
continue to reflect more than just
the specific concerns raised by their
immaturity at the time of the offense, but
represent the more important
justification for a punishment that is antiquated.
A closer look at
capital punishment reveals problems that consist of a lack of
ethics
regarding a child’s life, a possible enormous risk of wrongful
conviction,
and a staggering amount of money spent that does not accomplish any
means of
deterring others from committing murder. Foremost, in considering
the
appropriateness of capital punishment is the importance of understanding
the
federal laws, state laws, and an importance of international standards.
Maryland
law and federal law deliberated that those under 18 are not
adequately mature
enough to make adult decisions. Hence, those under 18 are
not able to vote, they
cannot legally drink, nor are they able to join the
armed forces. By this
reasoning, a juvenile whom the nation does not trust to
make adult decisions
should not be executed for choosing to perform the
immoral act of murder. The
Supreme Court arrived at its 1988 decision
that, in effect, acknowledged the
rationale of cases involving minors; that
there is an assumption that
adolescents are too young to understand the
consequences of their actions, and
set the minimum age at 16 in the landmark
case Thompson vs. Oklahoma.
Nevertheless, Melissa Sickmund, a senior
research associate at the National
Center for Juvenile Justice, believes
that the minimum age is a function of the
political landscape, "If the
Supreme Court were to consider the 1988 case now
it would have to take into
account the ever more popular tendency of the states
to try minors as adults"
(Butcher 4). Likewise, International Standards
prohibit the death penalty
against juvenile offenders, and organizations such as
the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, American Covenant on
Human
Rights, and Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of
Those
Facing the Death Penalty agree that, "Persons below 18 years of age
at the
time of the commission of the crime shall not be sentenced to death"
(qtd. in
Amnesty International’s Campaign 2) and have been endorsed by
the United
Nations General Assembly to help ensure universal ethical
treatment of children.
According to Amnesty International, the United
States of America has carried out
more documented executions of Juvenile
offenders than any other country.
Ironically, the majority of these
offenders that have been executed since 1990
were of serious or mental
deprivation. These adolescent’s lifestyles consisted
of a regular use of
drugs and alcohol, and the child held a considerably lower
than average
intelligence. Many offenders had some type of brain damage, and
most had poor
or inexperienced legal counsel; which resulted in a loss of
important
information and incompetent representation. Unfortunately, even
in
America we continue to practice the barbaric execution of children,
continue to
ignore international standards, and sadly there are inherent
problems because it
does not deter crime. Kevin Hughes, a diagnosed
schizophrenic, provides a strong
case study of mitigating circumstances that
were over looked in order to execute
a minor. Sixteen year-old Hughes,
strangled and raped another child in March
1979. His relatives testified
that Hughes suffered from, ". . .extreme mood
swings, hear[d] voices, and
[would] often be out of touch with reality. His
elder brother say that Kevin
‘believed that he had magical powers, and that
there was some kind of magic
that protected him. This was especially strange to
listen to, because it was
obvious from all the bad things he went through that
nothing had ever
protected him" (Amnesty International Report 25).
Furthermore, Hughes was
diagnosed as suffering from brain damage as a result of
childhood abuse and
had a subaverage IQ. In this case, the jury was not properly
instructed on
how to review Hughes’ case, and the jury never heard evidence of
Hughes’
abuse and neglect in his childhood or his mental illness. Hughes
was
sentenced to death in March of 1981, and hopefully an appeal will ensure
for
clemency; in order for better mental health care for a boy who should not
be
sentenced to death, but should be treated in a facility that can help his
state
of mind. Psychologically, it is impossible to use the death penalty as
a
deterrent, because those with no cognitive moral capacity are unable
to
understand its use as a punishment. According to Ernest van den Haag,
"Capital
punishment is regarded as unjust because it may lead to the
execution of the
innocents, or because the guilty poor (or disadvantaged) are
more likely to be
executed than the guilty rich" (Capital Punishment: A
Reader 48). In
considering the claim of injustice by reason of innocence, a
convicted man that
is found guilty, who is innocent, and if sentenced to be
executed, the penalty
cannot be reversed. With this knowledge, a human being
should not be morally
able to put a child to death when alternatives such as
life in prison can
provide the same justice at a lower cost to America. This
would serve as a
deterrent, inasmuch as those in prison could be
rehabilitated. Likewise, the
child would not be able to become a martyr, and
thus, his peers and community
could see him in prison for life; which is an
obvious deterrent. The death
penalty is unlike all other sentences, because
it is irreversible. Marietta
Jaeger, whose seven-year-old daughter was
kidnapped, raped, and murdered
believes that the death penalty is wrong, "I
say there is no amount of
retaliatory deaths that would compensate to me the
inestimable value of my
daughter’s life, nor would they restore her to my
arms or keep others from
committing murder. To say that the death of any
person would be just retribution
is to insult the immeasurable worth of our
loved ones who are victims" (qtd..
Amnesty International’s Campaign 12).
Therefore, no notion of capital
punishment, as a deterrent, can be applied to
children, inasmuch as the result
can be gained by a child serving a life
sentence, with no possibility for
parole. Taking a life for another life
solves nothing, except to guarantee a
tremendous expense to the state.
According to Dieter, across the country, there
are less police working,
prisoners are being released early, the courts are
overburdened, crime
continues to increase, and the "economic recession has
caused cutbacks in the
backbone of the criminal justice system" (Dieter 1).
Dieter cites that
the recession has caused Florida a budget crisis that resulted
in the early
release of 3,000 prisoners; Texas prisoners are only serving 20% of
their
time and rearrests are prevalent; Georgia has laid off 900
correctional
personnel, and New Jersey has had to dismiss 500 police
officers. Nevertheless,
these states, and many others, amazingly continues to
place money into the death
penalty with no consequent reduction in crime. The
higher cost to the state, is
due to the fact that the legal process in death
penalty cases is very
complicated, and reflects the jeopardy of someone’s
life. Death penalty trials
are longer and more complicated than non-death
penalty murder trials. According
to Richard Dieter, "Over two-thirds of the
states and the federal government
have installed an exorbitantly expensive
system of capital punishment which has
been a failure by any measure of
effectiveness. Literally hundreds of millions
of dollars have already been
spent on a response to crime which is calculated to
be carried out on a few
people each year, and which has done nothing to stem the
rise in violent
crime" (2). Anyone on trial for his life should be expected to
mount an
energetic defense. During a detailed trial that can include an
intensive use
of experts and investigators; this can become expensive.
Furthermore, if
convicted, death penalty cases require a sufficiently long"due process" in hopes
to ensure the guilt of the convict. Thus, such a
lengthy process will never
be inexpensive. The enormous cost of death penalty
cases are realistically
guaranteeing Americans a diminished safety, because of
the redirection of
money towards legal resources that are being diverted from
effective crime
fighting strategies. Examples of lack of money for innovations
like community
policing can be noted in California and Texas. Before the LA
Riots,
California achieved spending an extra $90 million per year on
capital
punishment, yet somehow neglected the safety of the people. Texas,
has over 300
people, 50 of which are juveniles, on death row, and on average
is spending an
estimated $2.3 million per case, leading the country in
executions of minors,
and yet its murder rate remains one of the highest in
the country. Capital
punishment is obviously not deterring the crime rate,
and America continuously
expends money on a punishment which does nothing but
burden the people of that
state. Even with the phenomenal amount of money
funneled into capital
punishment; it has been statistically proven that it
does not deter murder. In
fact, crime committed by juveniles has increased
steadily over the last few
years, "According to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, juvenile homicide
arrests have increased by 170 percent in the
last decade, while homicide arrest
for adults during the same period have
increased 25 percent" (Butcher 3).
Deterrence depends on the possibility
and ability of human responses to danger,
not the rationality of the person’s
thoughts. Therefore, capital punishment is
not psychologically able to deter
someone who has violated the law in fear of
the judicial procedure or
society. In essence, van den Haag theorizes that
natural dangers, all dangers
not deliberately created by legislation, are
insufficient. Therefore, fear of
a natural danger must be reinforced by legal
punishment to those who violate
the rules. These types of punishments keep most
people in compliance with the
law. Yet, in the absence of natural danger, the
threatened punishment is
light for the criminal violating the rules and, in this
case, obligation to
the rules vanish. Elsewhere punishment deters. Therefore
there is a distinct
bell curve to the notion of capital punishment in which it
does not work as a
deterrent. In removal of a religions view, there are still,
". . .two
truths about the human person: human life is both sacred and
social" (Capital
Punishment: A Reader, Bernardin 150) and regardless of human
merit or
worthiness, a child is entitled to exist and hold a to chance
for
rehabilitation. Distressingly, a young adolescent sentenced to death is
deprived
from his natural self worth, his ability to rehabilitate, his
potential, and
some kind livelihood. Realistically, when a human commits a
crime, he should be
punished for his crime in an appropriate manner which
deprives him of certain
pleasures, but not of everything life has to offer,
which is what the death
penalty ensures. Nor should we punish a person in a
cruel and unusual way, but
provide a sentence that requires the criminals to
be punished by a severe
method; which life in prison does. The value of a
human life is immeasurable
with all other values, and therefore the equating
punishment for murder, the
death sentence, does not give provide
retributionism, because value of one’s
murdered life does not equate to the
value of another. A suggested Alternative
for reducing crime can be provided
through evidence by New York State’s policy
on the death penalty. According
to Dieter, New York does not utilize capital
punishment, by reason of a study
presented by the NY State Defenders Association
found that the estimated cost
to the state $1.8 million, just for the trial and
the first stages of appeal
per defendant is too large of a burden. New York
experienced a decline in
every major crime in 1992 by implementing an
increasingly popular concept of
"community policing". Community policing
became, "a strategy for utilizing
police officers not just as people who react
to crime, but also as people who
solve problems becoming an integral part of the
neighborhoods they serve"
(Dieter 8). This program apparently works well when
the government can afford
to increase the amount of officers, rather than taking
from existing numbers,
leaving other work unattended. Crime rates can drop as
much as 30 percent as
seen in Boston, where more officers are able to support
the community. The
increasing costs of the death penalty are, in reality, making
America
less safe because of the loss of financial and legal resources that
are
presently being diverted from effective crime fighting programs.
Implementing
programs which have been siphoned off because of the death
penalty, and working
directly towards the front line goals on our war against
crime would increase
the safety for all Americans. Money towards the police,
correctional systems,
and neighborhood programs could install a safer
community, and one where murder
is not the norm, but a less rare event. In
conclusion, the above studies provide
evidence that the death penalty is
severely expensive, and provides no real
justification for retributionism,
safety for the society, or a notion of
responsibility for actions. Large sums
of money that are focused on only a few
individuals produces no gauge of
adequate results to justify their spending to
execute one person, while more
effective and vital services to the community are
being sacrificed. The
theory of the death penalty, in reality, was originally
utilized as a means
to deter others, a solution to crime, which is impossible,
as noted by
Jaeger, who’s daughter will never return and murder will still
continue. In
the end, maturity, mitigating circumstance, and psychological
problems ought
not to be by passed in order to gain a conviction for all,
especially for
minors, who do need adults to protect their best interests,
regardless of a
crime.
Bibliography
Amnesty International’s Campaign on the United
States. On the Wrong Side Of
History: Children and the Death Penalty in
the USA. New York, NY: Amnesty
International Publications, May 1998.
Amnesty International Report. "Juveniles
and the Death Penalty: Executions
Worldwide since 1990." Amnesty International
Act 50/11/98. (1998) Online
- Internet. Available:
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aipub/1998/ACT/A5001198.htm
Butcher,
Matthew. "Are They Too Young To Die?" MSNBC. (1998) Online -
Internet.
Available: http://www.msnbc.com/news/127366.asp Dieter, Richard C.
Esq.
"Millions Misspent: What Politicians Don’t Say About the High Cost of
the
Death Penalty." Death Penalty Information Center. (1994) Online
-
Internet. Available:
http://www.essential.org/orgs/dpic/dpic.r08/html#sxn5
Stassen, Glen H.,
ed. Capital Punishment: A Reader. Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 1998.