FREE ESSAY ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND MINORS

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
Works Cited
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.