Punishment For Juvenile Offenders

Introduction

The sort of punishment that is carried out for juvenile offenders has always been a matter of dispute and intrigue among law enforcement agencies. Especially if one talks about cases that pertain to capital punishment, which are the ones that are specifically looked after due to the increased media interest of all the stakeholders in such cases (Monahan et al. 2015). For instance, in one of the cases that was witnessed in 2005, Roper v. Simmons, the ruling that the United States made was that the execution of people who were aged 18 at the time of the crimes violated the constitutional guarantee that exists against the cruel and the unusual punishment (Monahan et al. 2015). It was a continuation of the opinion that was voiced by Rupert during the course of 2002 that the decision pertaining to the execution of such an instance goes against the constitution (Monahan et al. 2015). The general trend, though, has been that the situation has varied from one case to the other, and with the passage of time, it has become one (Cox et al. 2017).

The culpability of the Juvenile in the Capital Cases

One of the key things that needs to be understood when one talks about cases that are related to juveniles is the fact of how the execution was carried out when they were age 18 (Cox et al. 2017). The issue has been evaluated in many cases since the restoration of the death penalty was carried out during the course of the 1970’s. The case of Thompson vs. Oklahoma was the one where determination has to be carried out regarding the way an individual is supposed to be punished (Cox et al. 2017). The endorsement of the proposition that the culpability of the crime should be less if the juvenile has performed it is a matter of great debate. The problem is that the United States legal system has shown ambiguity in this regard as their stance has changed in many cases (Cox et al. 2017).

Law Enforcement and Juvenile Crime

If one talks about juvenile justice, the key thing is how law enforcement agencies play their part during the course of the whole process (Mears et al. 2015). What must be noted that once there is a case that the juvenile has been apprehended for the violation of the law, it is the police officer who is going to determine the fact that whether the person would be indulging deeper into the life of crime or whether they have a chance at redeeming themselves? Law enforcement agencies are supposed to track the overall volume and the characteristics of the crimes that are reported (Mears et al., 2015). When they have complete information at their disposal, they are in a position to monitor the changing level of crimes (Cox et al. 2017). The problem is that there is a lack of efficient reporting mechanisms in terms of the way reporting is carried out. There is a lack of consistency in terms of the treatment and how there is a lack of consistency in this regard (Cox et al. 2017.) Thus, the data control and data recording mechanism needs to be developed by law enforcement so that they can set a precedent in terms of the way crime reporting is carried out (Cox et al. 2017).

Correction in the Juvenile Capital Punishment System

The other thing that is very important is how the correction in the existing juvenile capital punishment system is supposed to be carried out (Liles & Moak, 2015). At times, rather than opting for capital punishment for juvenile criminals, the precedent that is set these days is about making sure that some sort of correctional treatment is being provided to these offenders (Liles & Moak, 2015). The idea is to make sure that when they commit the crime, due to the fact that they are juveniles, their decision-making capabilities are not developed (Mears et al. 2015). They had made a mistake, but bringing on capital punishment when they were not really in control of themselves is something that is not advised. Again, the lack of consistency that one gets to see in this regard makes it a very hard prospect (Liles & Moak, 2015). The other key aspect that has to be taken into consideration is how, in the long run, it would be made consistent across the board to account for the broader interpretation of the legal system (Liles & Moak, 2015). If consistency is not achieved, then the likelihood that one would see different interpretations of the cases related to juvenile capital punishment cases would further create confusion regarding the way forward and how it is supposed to proceed (Liles & Moak, 2015).

Court System and Legal Implications for the Capital Punishment

The last thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the sort of role the court system can play in setting up the implications that are related to the capital punishment of juveniles (Liles & Moak, 2015). Now, the interesting dilemma that the courts are witnessing is how the reasoning is going to be applied to the defendant’s youth in each of the cases (Mears et al. 2015). Then, the way defendants face future dangers is another area that needs to be taken into consideration (Liles & Moak, 2015). For instance, taking the example of Thompson v Oklahoma, the overall age of the offender is an important consideration when determining the punishment must be carried out to the individual who is a juvenile (Reiman & Leighton, 2015). On the contrary, looking at the case of Stanford and Kentucky, the same rationale was not being followed as it was implied that the Eight Amendment does not prohibit the death penalty for crimes that are committed between the ages of 16 and 17 (Liles & Moak, 2015).

Conclusion

At the moment, the way the courting system is working in the United States, they have a wide range of sentencing options at their disposal. These options are being termed as the disposition orders (Liles & Moak, 2015). They can impose these orders on juvenile offenders as well as youth offenders who are found to be delinquent in all cases (Liles & Moak, 2015). The key aspect that needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that if there is a case in which the minor has violated the criminal law, then the disposition of the option is going to fall into two camps (Reiman & Leighton, 2015). These two camps are incineration and non-incarceration. The problem is that the law at times dictates how these people should be punished regardless of their age, but in similar cases, leeway has been provided to people (Liles & Moak, 2015). Then comes the way the constituent quality of the crimes that these people carry out, and whether they warrant any sort of execution depends on the nature and the extent of the crime (Liles & Moak, 2015).

References

Cox, S. M., Allen, J. M., & Hanser, R. D. (2017). Juvenile justice: A guide to theory, policy, and practice. Sage Publications.

Liles, A., & Moak, S. C. (2015). Changing juvenile justice policy in response to the US Supreme Court: Implementing Miller v. Alabama. Youth Justice, 15(1), 76-92.

Mears, D. P., Pickett, J. T., & Mancini, C. (2015). Support for balanced juvenile justice: Assessing views about youth, rehabilitation, and punishment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 459-479.

Monahan, K., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Juvenile justice policy and practice: A developmental perspective. Crime and justice, 44(1), 577-619.

Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2015). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice. Routledge.