Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- 1 An overview of child and adolescent mental health needs in the juvenile justice system
- 2 Psychiatric disorders of youth in detention
- 3 Disproportionate minority confinement
- 4 Police interrogation of youth
- 5 Assessing children's competence to stand trial and to waive Miranda rights: new directions for legal and medical decision-making in juvenile courts
- 6 The etiology of antisocial behavior: biopsychosocial risk factors across development
- 7 Substance abuse in youth offenders
- 8 Suicide and delinquent adolescents
- 9 Juvenile sex offenders
- 10 Educational needs of youth in the juvenile justice system
- 11 Science and the juvenile death penalty
- 12 Medical issues regarding incarcerated adolescents
- 13 Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice
- 14 Psychological testing in juvenile justice settings
- 15 Psychopharmacology and juvenile delinquency
- 16 Evidence-based treatment for justice-involved youth
- 17 Community alternatives to incarceration
- 18 Innovative problem-solving court models for justice-involved youth
- 19 Ethical issues of youthful offenders: confidentiality; right to receive and to refuse treatment; seclusion and restraint
- 20 Post-adjudicatory assessment of youth
- Index
- References
11 - Science and the juvenile death penalty
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 August 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- 1 An overview of child and adolescent mental health needs in the juvenile justice system
- 2 Psychiatric disorders of youth in detention
- 3 Disproportionate minority confinement
- 4 Police interrogation of youth
- 5 Assessing children's competence to stand trial and to waive Miranda rights: new directions for legal and medical decision-making in juvenile courts
- 6 The etiology of antisocial behavior: biopsychosocial risk factors across development
- 7 Substance abuse in youth offenders
- 8 Suicide and delinquent adolescents
- 9 Juvenile sex offenders
- 10 Educational needs of youth in the juvenile justice system
- 11 Science and the juvenile death penalty
- 12 Medical issues regarding incarcerated adolescents
- 13 Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice
- 14 Psychological testing in juvenile justice settings
- 15 Psychopharmacology and juvenile delinquency
- 16 Evidence-based treatment for justice-involved youth
- 17 Community alternatives to incarceration
- 18 Innovative problem-solving court models for justice-involved youth
- 19 Ethical issues of youthful offenders: confidentiality; right to receive and to refuse treatment; seclusion and restraint
- 20 Post-adjudicatory assessment of youth
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
On March 1, 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled that executing those who were under the age of 18, at the time of the crime, had become “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution (Roper v. Simmons, 125 S.Ct. 1183 [2005]). There has been criticism, by some, of the Court's legal reasoning in coming to that decision (e.g., so-called “judicial activism,” incorrect Eighth Amendment analysis, improper consideration of foreign law). However, few have argued with Justice Kennedy's conclusion as to the “diminished culpability of juveniles.” (Simmons, 2005, p. 1196). Adolescents are simply not as responsible as fully formed adults who commit similar crimes.
The Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment analysis in death penalty cases is based on two principles. The first, a fundamentally legal one, is whether “standards of decency” have evolved to the point where there is now national consensus that a particular form of punishment has become cruel and unusual. A second issue the Court has to address is whether the constitutionally legitimate purposes of the death penalty – retribution and deterrence – are applicable to this particular group of offenders. In coming to a conclusion regarding the level of culpability, and therefore the appropriate punishment, for 16- and 17-year-old offenders, the Court had to look outside the law and to science.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Mental Health Needs of Young OffendersForging Paths toward Reintegration and Rehabilitation, pp. 241 - 254Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
ABA website. AMA amicus. www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/ama.pdf.
ABA website. APA amicus. www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/apa.pdf.
ABA website. Child Advocates amicus. www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/childad.pdf.
APA (2004). Diminished responsibility in capital sentencing. Position statement. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Atkins v. Virginia, 122 S.Ct. 2242 (2002).
, , et al. (1999). Functional magnetic resonance imaging of facial affect recognition in children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(2), 195–199.Google Scholar
(2002) The Death Penalty: An American History. Harvard University Press.
Brown v. The Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
& (1978). Changes in brain weight during the span of human life. Annals of Neurology, 4, 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 410 (1982).
& (2005). The decline of the juvenile death penalty: scientific evidence of evolving norms. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 427–501.Google Scholar
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
, , et al. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 861–863.Google Scholar
Gur, R. C. (2002). Declaration of Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D., Patterson v. Texas. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to US Supreme Court, J. Gary Hart, Counsel. (Online at http://www/abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Gur%20affidavit.pdf).
(1979). Synaptic density in human frontal cortex: developmental changes and effects of age. Brain Research, 163, 195–205.Google Scholar
& (1990). Late childhood changes in brain morphology observable with MRI. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 32, 379–385.Google Scholar
, , ., . & . (2004). Neuropsychiatric, neuropsychological, educational, and family characteristics of 18 juvenile offenders awaiting execution in Texas. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 32, 408–429.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2001). Age-related volumetric changes of brain gray and white matter in healthy infants and children. Cerebral Cortex, 11(4), 335–342.Google Scholar
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).
, , et al. (1994). A quantitative magnetic resonance imaging study of changes in brain morphology from infancy to late adulthood. Archives of Neurology, 51, 874–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PHR website (2004). Former US Surgeons General and more than 400 child health professionals call for an end to the juvenile death penalty. www.physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/news-2004-07-19.html. July 19, 2004.
Roper v. Simmons, 125 S.Ct. 1183 (2005).
, , et al. (1999) In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10): 859–861.Google Scholar
Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989).
State ex rel. Simmons v. Roper, 112 S.W. 3rd, 397 (2003).
& (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist, 58(12), 1009–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streib, V. (2004). Death Penalty Today: Death Sentences and Executions for Juvenile Crimes. www.law.onu.eud/faculty/streib/documents/JuvDeathDec2004.pdf
(1991). Maturation of the human frontal lobes: physiological evidence for staging. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7, 397–419.Google Scholar
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988).
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).
Yakovlev, P. I. & Lecours, A. R. (1967). The myelogenetic cycles of regional maturation if the brain. In: Regional Development of the Brain in Early Life, , ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell, pp. 3–65.
, , et al. (2000). fMRI during affect discrimination in bipolar affective disorder, Bipolar Disorders, 2(3.2), 237–248.Google Scholar