Juvenile Crime and the Case Against Irreversible Punishment
Currently, there are more than two thousand underage children serving sentences in juvenile centers across the country. It is not prudent to take away the life of a child and ruin it forever instead of giving an individual an opportunity to rejoin civil society. Therefore, capital punishment and life without parole for juvenile offenders should be abolished as a matter of urgency since these punishments have not solved the problem of crime and violate the Eighth Amendment. Proponents of these punishments argue that they remove fears about safety and security since people would not be afraid of certain dangerous youths. However, life without parole for juvenile offenders should be abolished since it violates the Constitution and the right to life of all citizens. Rather than deviating from this purpose, established juvenile centers in the United States should give children the opportunity to rebuild their lives and become part of civil society.
Though more than eight states have allowed capital punishment and life without parole for juvenile offenders, these punishments are illegal and should be abolished. Everyone has the right to live in society, and life without parole violates the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution; therefore, no child should be sentenced to life in prison without parole (Tiffany 15). Several Supreme Courts have ruled against the practice, and therefore, it would be unfair for the United States Supreme Court to support it. In the case State v. Andrews, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that Andrew was a child and, for that reason, he could not be jailed for life. The court further stated that the punishment available for juveniles who committed first-degree offenses was imprisonment unless there was proof that the crime was committed as an adult.
Life without parole for juvenile offenders should also be abolished since children who commit crimes do not act with the same degree of maturity as adults. Research has established that most children who commit crimes are influenced by social factors over which they sometimes have no control (Jonathan 25). Therefore, subjecting a child to several years in jail or death for a crime the child committed at fourteen years old cannot be fair and is unjust. Abolishing life without parole does not mean offenders are going to be released. It means giving juvenile offenders an opportunity to be rehabilitated so they can have another life. Studies indicate that several juveniles have been rehabilitated and have become better people in society, making a difference in their lives (Sarah 23). It is better to provide an opportunity for a child to rebuild his or her life than to take it away and ruin it forever. This is an important question that the Supreme Court of the United States should consider as it discusses capital punishment and life without parole for juvenile offenders.
Life Without Parole and the Developmental Status of Young Offenders
Sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without parole is a judgment that means the offender will never rejoin civil society. According to Laurence and Scott (5), it is a harsh punishment that befits only adults who have committed terrible crimes. It is not a fair punishment for a juvenile whose character is still unconfirmed and whose involvement in crime is a reflection of immaturity and is also influenced by the adolescent stage. In a previous ruling, Supreme Court Justice Kennedy stated that minors, even at the age of seventeen years, have behavioral issues that affect their actions, and this does not reflect the true character of a child (Laurence and Scott 15). Research has indicated that children who have been through juvenile centers can end up having a good life and becoming law-abiding citizens. The judgment illustrated that juvenile recklessness, impulsivity, and susceptibility are results of peer pressure, which makes them act irresponsibly. If juveniles are given a chance, they can change their lives in the future. It is argued that juvenile personalities and character traits are less fixed and more transitory than those of adults. It is therefore not fair to impose life without parole on juvenile offenders because juveniles should be rehabilitated to become better people. Rehabilitation has worked before, and it is appropriate to continue rehabilitating juveniles by readmitting them to civil society.
Juveniles should not be sentenced to death or life in jail without parole. Imposing harsh punishment on immature adolescent children only deprives them of the opportunity to excel in life and become better people. Research has also established that children’s behaviors are often influenced by outside pressure. Again, children still have the capacity for reform, and therefore, they can still change their lives. Therefore, the death penalty or life without parole can be cruel and unusual in civil society. Several rulings have been made to abolish life without parole, for instance, in the case of Roper V. Simmons, 543. U. 551 (2005), where the Supreme Court dismissed the case and ruled that Simmons was a juvenile and that a crime committed as a juvenile should not be treated in the same way as an adult case; therefore, the first-degree charges were invalidated (Gale, Cengage Learning 15). However, Supreme Court judges should consider the wisdom of the bench that made this ruling decades ago and save juveniles from being locked up forever.
The proponents of capital punishment and life without parole for juveniles argue that everybody should be treated equally and that crimes committed by juveniles are equivalent and should be addressed by the same measures. Most of them believe that a crime committed by a child deserves harsh punishment to set an example for the rest. Proponents also argue that giving parole to juveniles might increase the crime rate in the future and therefore that they should be punished to remove fear so that we can have a safe and secure civil society. However, the arguments of proponents fail to consider two facts: juveniles are growing, and as children grow, they adapt, change, and transform; therefore, the possibility of a child becoming a good citizen is high. The Eighth Amendment and other jurisprudence that judges have used to dismiss previous cases like Roper V. Simmons should be given maximum consideration before making any harsh decision regarding life without parole and capital punishment for juvenile offenders.
Public Safety, Accountability, and the Possibility of Rehabilitation
There is no doubt that teenagers who commit serious crimes should be punished, and society should be protected from teenagers who are violent and dangerous. It is the responsibility of the authorities to act quickly and do what it takes to protect innocent citizens from dangerous criminals, whether young or old. However, several studies have indicated that many juveniles have been rehabilitated and have become good, law-abiding citizens. It is illustrated that many juveniles have left the centers and rejoined civil society to become good citizens. Research has shown that almost 55% of juveniles have been readmitted to society and are now doing well and respecting the law.
Therefore, the notion that juveniles cannot be rehabilitated is a perception that does not have any basis in science or research and does not have any psychological backing. It is not possible to be sure that a juvenile convicted of a crime will grow up to become a career criminal. It is not within our ability to make such permanent decisions about juvenile lives while forgetting the larger picture: the future. Juveniles can change and have proven to change over time to become better adults, and therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court regarding capital punishment and life without parole for juvenile offenders should consider various factors relating to life.
In conclusion, everyone wants a peaceful, safe, and secure environment in which to live, and putting juvenile offenders in confinement for years is not the best way to achieve that peace and security. Therefore, capital punishment and life without parole for juvenile offenders should be abolished forever. Research establishes that juveniles commit criminal acts when under outside influences, and therefore, many of them do not fully understand what they are doing. It is appropriate to give such children time to rebuild their futures and become better people in society rather than ruining their lives forever. Again, it is obvious that children can change to become better people after rehabilitation, and therefore, juvenile offenders should be rehabilitated instead of being subjected to long-term suffering in jail. It is the best method for building a future generation that can take care of its needs. Therefore, the Supreme Court judges sitting in Washington, D.C., should not support capital punishment and life without parole for juvenile offenders.
The relevant Supreme Court decisions are examined in juvenile life-without-parole rulings.
Works Cited
Gale, Cengage Learning. “Introduction to Should Juveniles Be Given Life Without Parole?: At Issue.” Should Juvenile be Given Life Without Parole (2011): 2-45.
Jonathan, Levy. “The case of the missing argument: the mysterious disappearance of international law from juvenile sentencing in Miller v. Alabama.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 36.12 (2013): 2-35.
Laurence, Steinberg and Elizabeth Scott. “Should Juvenile Offenders Ever Be Sentenced to Life without the Possibility of Parole?” Human Development (2012): 2-34.
Sarah, Archibald. “Capital Punishment in the U.S. States: Executing Social Inequality.” Criminal Justice: Recent Scholarship (2015): 2-45.
Tiffany, Shutte. “Cruel and Unusual: The Effect of Miller v. Alabama on the Indefinite Civil Confinement of Juvenile Sex Offenders.” (2015): 2-34.
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
