As the punishment pendulum swings for adult crimes, the same is true for juveniles. In the past ten years, juvenile crime has gone down but society’s response to media reports of juvenile crimes would suggest something different. Responses have been full of desire for the harshest possible punishment including transfer to adult court, and charges of life without the possibility of parole. The policies regarding sentencing juvenile offenders reflected society’s belief with most states giving an allowance to the prosecutor to push for specific juvenile arrestees to be tried in adult court. Usually these are juveniles around 15 years or older involved in a serious violent felony. These policies were based on the idea of incapacitation, punishment and deterrence suggesting that violent juvenile offenders need to be kept away from society for the remainder of their lives. Because of the newer research regarding brain development and understanding consequences, which studies have found much of that happens around the early twenties, the policy of regarding an 18 year old as an adult in the criminal context has been looked at differently very recently.
Just recently, the United States Supreme Court changed the law regarding mandatory life without the possibility of parole sentences and deemed it unconstitutional by the 8th amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment. This policy decision was based off prior court rulings involving murders by different aged juvenile defendants. The court said mandatory sentencing did not take into account whether the juvenile had specific mitigating circumstances, or the exact age. So, a 14 year old and a 17 year old could both be mandatorily sentenced for life without the possibility of parole for murder, but have different life circumstances (e.g. abusive home life) affecting their mental state in regards to understanding what it means to take a person’s life.
Also, PBS Frontline has done interviews with convicted adolescent murderers, and violent offenders sentenced to life without parole through the adult court. Andy Medina, a 15 year old, was convicted of a shooting that he was involved in. But it wasn’t clear on whether he actually fired the shot that killed another youth. He has been in prison for approximately ten years, and the reality of the crime was not apparent to his 15 year old self, and that reality will present itself with maturity. A 15 year old and a 25 year old are very different because so much changes in how we understand and perceive situations and consequences.
Because of human rights groups and documentaries, the message is starting to be pushed to the general society. The change in mandatory life sentencing is just the start for the appropriate justice and sentencing to happen in the first place. Rehabilitative and restorative justice measures are being looked at as plausible solutions to crime more than ever with studies returning positive results. Society is the biggest influence on public policy, so the next step would be to inform the public of these programs, prove that it has worked, has saved money, and will keep recidivism levels down and then policy can reflect ideas that are successful.
Liptak, Adam, and Ethan Bronner. "Justices Bar Mandatory Life Terms for Juveniles." New York Times. 25 2012: n. page. Print. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/justices-bar-
Maguire, Mary, and Dan Okada. Critical Issues in Crime and Justice: Thought, Policy, and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2011. 245-50. Print.
Medina, Andy. "Profile Andrew Medina." Frontline: When Kids Get Life. 2004. pbs. . Web. 21 Nov 2012.
Turpin, James. "New Legislation Sets Tone For Future Debate." Corrections Today 58.5 (1996): 160. Criminal Justice Abstracts. Web. 21 Nov. 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment