|
|
Post by nicolegreenbaum on May 10, 2016 21:36:03 GMT
Most of the developmental research on cognitive and psychosocial functioning in adolescence measures behaviors, self perceptions, or attitudes, but mounting evidence suggests that at least some of the differences between adults and adolescents have neuropsychological and neurobiological underpinnings. (Steinberg & Scott 2003, p. 5)
In an article by Laurence Steinberg and Elizabeth Scott, experts argue that adolescents do not meet the law’s general requirements for rationality and therefore they should be considered less than fully responsible for their actions and, more specifically, unsuitable candidates for the death penalty.
The Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the Roper v. Simmons case, in which it held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. This case, in Missouri, involved Christopher Simmons, who, in 1993 at the age of 17, kidnapped a woman from her home, bound her hands and feet with wire and wrapped her head in duct tape, and threw her from a railroad bridge into a river, leaving her to drown. Three years before the Roper case, the Supreme Court had ruled that the execution of a mentally retarded person violates the Eighth Amendment (Atkins v. Virginia). On the basis of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Atkins, the Missouri Supreme Court held that Christopher Simmons could not be executed because, as a juvenile, he similarly had diminished personal culpability. It set aside Simmons’s death penalty and re-sentenced him to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
A dissenting opinion authored by Justice Scalia argued that in other contexts, studies had indicated that persons under 18 were sufficiently mature to make difficult moral decisions, such as the decision to have an abortion.
Questions: Do you agree with Justice Scalia? Do juveniles have diminished personal culpability? Is there really a distinct point in life in which a person becomes culpable?
|
|
paola
New Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by paola on May 11, 2016 4:48:03 GMT
Oddly, this post reminds me of a recent Grey’s Anatomy episode I watched. Two kids (age ~ 4-5 years old) were playing in one of their mothers’ rooms, and they found a gun in a drawer. Not knowing what it was or how it worked, one of the kids pulled the trigger and (accidentally) shot his friend. Technically speaking, the child can be labeled as a murderer. However, whilst the shot friend was undergoing surgery, the doctors kept reassuring the “shooter” and his mother that he had not killed his friend and that he was not to be deemed a murderer; “he couldn’t have known better”, the doctors implied. At such an age, I agree that juvenile offenders cannot be held responsible for crimes as, at this age, they do indeed have diminished personal culpability. The kids perhaps thought the gun was a toy - just like the ones they had seen in the cartoons or in a toy store.
However, let’s say that these kids were actually seventeen years old - supposedly both still subject to the same consequences as the four-year-olds if ever involved in a crime. A seventeen year old’s maturity does not suddenly spike when he or she turns eighteen. At this age, given the individuals involved are healthy and do not have any illnesses, a crime is no longer seen as a mistake or as an accident. The crime becomes a crime. An average seventeen-year-old would know what a gun is and its dangers if handled carelessly - just like an eighteen-year old-would. In this specific, case, I would not agree with the fact that juvenile offenders cannot be held responsible for criminal acts.
With that being said, I think deeming a juvenile responsible or not for a crime varies case by case. In my opinion, for each case, a maturity assessment should be issued before going on with the trial. A four year old’s mentality and maturity greatly differs from a seventeen year old’s, so they shouldn’t be subject to the same consequences during criminal trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by emmajessicalin on May 12, 2016 1:20:27 GMT
I agree ^^^
In addition, a person's maturity can vary greatly from another person's maturity even if they are the same age. It would make the most sense to assess a person's maturity before making a decision rather than assuming that all eighteen-year-olds, for example, have the same maturity level. Giving a maturity assessment before trials seems to be a good solution, but then other problems would arise, such as whether the maturity assessment is accurate or fair.
|
|
rkipp
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by rkipp on May 12, 2016 2:45:29 GMT
I also believe that there is no exact moment that maturity occurs. I think that maturity is developed over a period of time, and that development is different for everyone. As emmajessicalin said, maturity differs from person to person. Regardless of maturity though, I still think it is important to have a juvenile court because young adults' brains are still forming and hopefully through specific punishments or treatment their brains can be re-shaped so that they do not become adult criminals. If they were treated in the same court as adults, there may be less hope to help these young adults who may not know any better. So, even if maturity levels different, these young adults are still all young adults who can benefit from a juvenile system versus being thrown right alongside adults. |
|
|
|
Post by hrhunter on May 12, 2016 4:51:19 GMT
I definitely agree with both of you. While I do believe that juveniles are not completely matured, I don't think you can pin point an exact age for maturity. 18 almost seems to be a stretch because our brains are said to continue to develop until age 25, so shouldn't that be where we mark maturity? Also, I know that when a crime is severe enough (i.e. first-degree murder) they will charge a juvenile as an adult no matter their age, so at this point they are assuming that diminished personal culpability only goes so far to be attributed as the "cause" of the crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by stacyli on May 12, 2016 6:10:44 GMT
I have a similar stance to what was said above as well. I do think that since juvenile brains are still developing; they cannot be necessarily held fully accountable for their actions as adults are. In terms of societal organization and keeping chaos to a minimum, it is important to have a distinction between juvenile and adult, and for when someone can be held as completely mature and responsible for what they do. I also think it's very interesting to see why 18 is the standard for becoming an adult. I feel like being 18 definitely does not feel like or seem like it should be the age when you start acting more "adult." For me personally, I still can't believe that I'm supposed to be completely accountable for and understand all my responsibilities I should be able to handle, especially when it comes to those that are entangled with the law. In terms of life balance, I think it would probably make the most sense to extend the age range for which we can define a juvenile. However, I think because it would cause massive changes in doing other things that people may want "adult" rights for (ie legal smoking/drinking ages, being able to vote...etc.), the legal adult age has yet to be changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolegreenbaum on May 12, 2016 7:46:57 GMT
It sounds like most of you agree that there is no single point of defined "maturity", but is there a way to test maturity?
The law has held for centuries that children under age 14 were not legally capable of forming criminal intent. For any crime to occur, there must be the convergence of what is known as the "actus reus" (the guilty act) and the "mens rea" (the guilty mind, also known as criminal intent). In the case of Simmons v. Roper, the murder was a premeditated act and therefore the criminal intent was definitely there. We may not be able to test for maturity, but what are your thoughts on investigating a crime for criminal intent?
|
|
|
|
Post by Emily Leung on May 12, 2016 18:02:49 GMT
I think that intent is a key word in analyzing these situations. In the Roper v. Simmons case, that girl clearly had intent to harm her mother, but in the 4-5 year old case, I doubt the kid had the goal to hurt his/her friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by jreitsma on May 12, 2016 22:23:05 GMT
I agree with Justice Scalia, juveniles at the youngest of ages know that it is unethical to throw someone off of a bridge. It's not like the decision because obviously wrong once you turn 18, and those who say that 17-year-olds do not have the mental capability to understand how wrong this is, is ludacris. People at the age of 13, people used to be parents and raising a family, just within the past century has people set a age of when one is mature enough to be an adult. If we continue to make excuses for all people within all ages, we heighten the risk of more people continuing to justify their wrong actions.
|
|
