Capital Punishment: Does Age Really Matter - Case Study Example

Capital Punishmnet- Does Age Really Matter? Age is not a factor to be considered whilst decidingupon punishment of a crime like murder. On September 9th, 1993, two teenagers Christopher Simmons and Charles Benjamin, aged 16 and 17 respectively, broke into a trailer house, abducted a woman, tied her up and pushed her off a railroad bridge into the river below. The boy aged 16 was awarded a life sentence because he was too young for a death penalty, while the 17 year one was considered old enough to be sentenced to capital punishment. Simmons death sentence was later reversed by the Supreme Court based on arguments of his young age at the time of the crime. This case and the age issue has attracted special attention from several medical and psychiatric institutions who argue that juveniles shouldn’t be awarded death sentences for their brains are not fully developed at that age. In fact, briefs have been filed to the courts making the same argument. The basic arguments are based on research that shows that human brains continue to develop till the mid 20s. It is believed that a 17 year old cannot be held responsible for his actions for he does not have total control of his capacities at this early age. His actions are triggered by the amygdale because the frontal cortex has not yet fully developed. (Raeburn) The article ‘Too Immature for the Death Penalty’ communicates different researches and demonstrations that have been carried out and show that brain continues to change and develop well beyond the teenage years. All along the growing years, the brain keeps acclimatizing to the environment it is growing in. Researchers have proven that children could take actions like adults but that this behavior cannot be consistent due to the not so fully developed brain. It is further pointed out that stressful situations like the ones the two convicted teenagers were in, children cannot be expected to behave as adults would. The basic point that needs to be considered here is whether this entire new research gives a free pass to young children involved in hideous crimes. If children at a young age have misidentified emotions and are not fully capable of dealing with stressful situations, who will take responsibility for their actions? Even if the argument that parents can bring up children in a manner that will help them survive their earlier years without hurting themselves and others is taken into consideration, the fact that children sometimes just act on impulse cannot be used to justify a crime like murder. It is true that children cannot be expected to act like adults. It is quite alright for teenagers to have childish reactions to stressful situations and in face of peer pressure. However, in my opinion, murder is not just a random act that one simply commits under pressure. It is not one of those things that lie in the grey area between what is right and what is wrong. Murder cannot be compared to when a child on an impulse decides to steal a candy because he is too young to understand how wrong it is. A five year old has enough sense to know that murder is more than just wrong, it is sinful. Some acts just have ethical dimensions but I cannot stress enough on the fact that first degree murder is an exception to all dimensions be it age or circumstances. This crime is not just committed against a single individual; the entire society is victimized by it. People stop feeling safe; those who knew the actual victim can probably never completely recover from this trauma. All these implications of this notorious act can just not be ignored because the crime was committed by a seventeen year old who did not have a fully developed brain. I do not doubt or am raising questions over the researchers claim that a child’s brain is not fully developed. My argument is that a seventeen year old has enough sense to understand what murder is and what its consequences are. Hence, he needs to be punished accordingly. Giving someone a relatively free pass and protection from penalty of any act just because of age will disturb the entire social fabric of a society. People will stop believing in the legal system as a fair and just institution. The supreme court decision to consider age while deciding on the punishment were based on the assumption that children’s ‘inexperience, less education, and less intelligence, makes them unable to weigh the repercussions of their actions. The factor that children can also be coerced to act in a particular manner by their under developed emotion, peer pressure or some other individual. The court went on to say that when children are not expected to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of adults, than it is only right that their conduct be as ‘morally reprehensible as that of an adult’ (capital punishment in context). In respect of all that, it is important to remember that here we are not talking about a ten or twelve year old, but a seventeen year old. In my opinion, at this age, the teenagers have enough social understanding, knowledge and sense that they need to be punished for their acts, especially acts such as murder. The technological repercussions of this digital age have resulted in increased exposure for children that have caused them to grow up before their years. The role of television and internet is immense in exposing children to experiences and information that were previously unimagined (Mail Online).This exposure means that children today are more intelligent and wise. Then how can one in this age and time say that a seventeen year old is not fully responsible for their actions. Public opposition of juvenile execution is increasing and support of this issue is mind boggling. In today’s world, where children are acting like adults in many ways, how can one support them not being punished like one. The level and number of crimes committed by teenagers is forever increasing and in this environment, giving these children a relatively free pass will have tremendous consequences. It will do nothing but increase crime, for now teenagers can commit crimes without the threat of retribution. The argument is baseless for what it is basically saying is that children can act like adults but because they do not do it intentionally, they shouldn’t be punished for such behavior. However, as a believer in operant conditioning, I believe in reinforcement and as such, no retribution for a heinous crime ultimately emits a negative signal, justifying and in sorts, encouraging crimes of this nature. Whether capital punishment is taking punishment a step too far is debatable. Nevertheless, under no account should such criminal acts, especially one such atrocious as murder go unpunished or in this case under-punished, and juveniles be allowed to walk scot free for by doing this, society justifies and in a way, supports this lack of consciousness just because the said criminal falls within an ‘acceptable’ age limit. Bibliography Raeburn, Paul. "Too Immature for the Death Penalty?." newyork times 17 Oct. 2004: n. pag. The NewYork Times. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. "The Death Penalty for Juveniles | Capital Punishment in Context." Welcome to Capital Punishment in Context | Capital Punishment in Context. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. . "Modern life is making children grow up too fast | Mail Online." Home | Mail Online. N.p., 24 Sept. 2011. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. . Read More