Introduction
The Juvenile Justice system was established in 1899 in Chicago, IL. The primary purpose of this system was to hold juvenile offenders accountable for acts of delinquencies while at the same time providing rehabilitative programs, services and treatment meant to prevent future occurrence of involving themselves with behaviors that violate the law. This system came in as a response to the harsh treatment the children were subjected to in the system of criminal justice. It recognized the difference between adults and children and called for a rehabilitative ideal.
With the increases violent crime of the last quarter of the twentieth century, death penalty statute was passed. This shifted the juvenile justice system to stronger policies than in the past. The shift included the retransfer of juvenile offenders to criminal courts and the increased number of offenders who were below eighteen years were now subject to life imprisonment without parole, absolute sentence and even death penalty.
Juvenile Death Penalty in the United States
Thirty eight states in the US have authorized death penalty. Juvenile death penalty which applies to offenders who have not celebrated their eighteenth birthday is allowed in twenty three states of the thirty eight that authorize death penalty. Laws vary from one state to another of the twenty three states; not necessarily because of the varying rates of crime. Seventy four people are currently awaiting death penalty for crimes they committed as juveniles while seventeen men have already been executed (Streib, 2000)
Positioning statement
I call for the US government to ratify article 37(a) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children (CRC). Researchers done in the past on juvenile death penalty have not considered and properly investigated on all the mitigating factors that have led to Juvenile crime. Factors like environmental issues, psychiatrist history, and mental capacity. Physical abuse, paranoid ideation, sexual abuse and family issues in addition to age have also not been considered leading to the execution of the youth.
Juvenile death penalty
States courts have found it a big problem to investigate the mitigating factors that cause juvenile crime because the complete profile of offenders is usually difficult to obtain. This means that detailed information about offenders is seldom available. The few and scanty research done to establish the cause of crime have added to the teenagers profile who have been sentenced to death penalty.
A study conducted by Lewis and his colleagues in 1988 on thirty seven juvenile offenders sitting on a death row in the US showed that fourteen of them had sustained head injuries as children. This was comprehensive assessment study that also showed that seven of the offenders had psychotic disorders since childhood. Nine of them suffered from major neuropsychological disorders while those with serious psychotic disturbances totaled up to seven juveniles.
The research further indicated that six of the juvenile offenders had average reading abilities while only two scored an IQ test of 90; just ten points below average. Twelve of the children had traumatizing childhood experience of brutal abuse and sexual abuse or both abuses. Five boys had been sodomized by close relatives.
These are the mitigating factors that had not been considered or established before the sentencing, trial and even death penalty was passed. This called for more expertise and time so as to document all the clinical and historical data that was available. The resechers faced challenging time with the Attorneys as they ware told not to reveal information on sexual and physical abuse so as to spare the families from embarrassment. Such a move may hinder the execution of justice toward the juvenile who were facing death penalty. The relevant mitigating issues, sexual and physical abuse, paranoid ideation, brain damage were deliberately concealed or overlooked.
Similar results were found by Amnesty International in 1991, where mitigating evidence had not been investigated before hearing of sentence and neither before trails. Amnesty international studied a case of Dwayne Allan Wright who was executed on October 14th 1998 for a crime he committed at 17. The organization found out that the court had nominated a clinical philologist who has authored a book which postulated that environmental and mental illness are not the mitigating factors of criminal acts. Crime development, according to the psychologist is “get away with” rather than the “resultant action”. The defender had accepted this leading to his death (Amnesty International 1998 p 30).
A research carried out by Robinson and Stevens in 1992 aimed at categorizing the 91 juveniles sentenced to death between 1973 and 1991 into five major descriptive categories based on mitigating circumstances. There finding indicated that forty five of those sentenced had histories of troubled social and family backgrounds. They had been subjected to unstable childhood environment, physical abuse, and illiteracy. Psychological disturbance such as depression, self mutilation and paranoia was evident in twenty nine of them. More than forty six of them were indigent and just under one third had mental disability, seen in border line IQ score. Eighteen of them had intensive substance abuse before they committed crimes. These findings show that juveniles were sentenced to death yet they suffered from various combinations of mitigating circumstances in addition to their youthful ages.
Current global view points.
With the adoption of the Declaration of Human Rights forty years ago, most world countries have abolished death penalty has a whole. The use Death penalty for juveniles in the world is however, not known because undocumented cases number of death penalty at the time of execution or when a crime was committed are or the increase. The US had not adopted international bans on juvenile death penalty. Federal governments still hold the rights of imposing death penalty on crimes committed by the young less than eighteen years. China has historically executed more people annually than any other country in the world. Somalia and the US are yet to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) which states that “ neither life imprisonment nor capital punishments without possibility of release shall be imposed on offences committed by persons below eighteen years” (Clausmeier Dirk, 2007, p 1).
Efforts of reforms by states.
It is only in Oregon, Indiana and Washington, Dc that courts prohibit the imposition of life without parole to young offenders below sixteen years. A few other states have effectively prohibited life sentence without parole for juvenile offenders through establishing sentence limitation and setting a minimum age waiver. Other states have failed to clearly indicate if life without parole can be imposed to juveniles less than sixteen years or not while some never at all use the sentence.
American jurisdictions have allowed life without parole for offenders below sixteen years. They have made it a mandatory for convicted offenders of certain offences by the criminal courts. The courts have come to a conclusion on three factors to be considered in analyzing the proportionality of any crime. First, are the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty. Second is the sentences imposed in other jurisdiction and finally sentences imposed on other crimes or more serious offenses in the same jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The juvenile offenders were subjected to capital offence and sentenced to death penalty. They serve as the focal point to the ongoing political debate as whether the US has to adopt the CRC not. The constitution has to be amended for the sake of public safety. The courts (juries and judges) have to adopt available alternatives in determining the fates of the youth which can be in line with human rights and the rights of the youth and children.
Reference
Amnesty International (1998) The US on the wrong side of History: child and death
penalty in the US, NY, amnesty international USA publication’s 30
Robinson, D and Stevens H (1992) patterns of mitigating factors in juvenile death penalty
cases. Criminal bulletin, edition 3 p 246-275
Streib, VL (2000) the juvenile death penalty today: death sentences and executions for
juvenile crimes, OhioNorthernUniversity press pp 43
Clausmeier Dirk, (2007) rights of a detained child, criminal law forum. Book review
Springer press, p 1
