Over the last week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard two cases related to the Eighth Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishments.
Four years ago in 2005, the Supreme Court has decided by a vote of 5 to 4 that people under the age of 18 should not be executed in any case. However the cases before the court this time, Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida, are slightly different. They concern the question of whether age should be taken into account in deciding if juvenile offenders might be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in crimes not involving murder.
As usual, the court and the general public are divided into two sides holding different arguments.
Not to anyone’s surprise, Justice Scalia supports the life sentence. During the hearing, he made his point very clear. “One of the purposes is retribution, punishment for just perfectly horrible actions,” he pointed out, “And I don’t know why the value of retribution diminishes to the point of zero when it’s a person who’s … 17 years old.” In other words, what happened during the crime already becomes a fact that does not change with the criminal’s age. Since one purpose of the law is to punish the offender, the same degree of punishment should be given to a 17-year-old and a 35-year-ole if they commit the same crime.
But many people seem unconvinced.
One argument in support for age-consideration can be drawn from the reasoning delivered by the court’s majority opinion in the 2005 year case. As concluded by Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent of The New York Times, one major reason behind the 2005 case was the fact that “people under 18 are immature, irresponsible, susceptible to peer pressure and often capable of change.” Hence, it can be argued that because of the psychological and intellectual difference between a juvenile and an adult, the juvenile should not be punished as hard as an adult for the same crime because the decision a junior made during the crime is not a “mature” one. More importantly, people under 18 are usually capable of changing, and locking them up for the rest of their life seems a little bit harsh. As argued by Bryan Stevenson, Mr. Sullivan’s lawyer, “To say to any child of 13 that you are only fit to die in prison is cruel. It can’t be reconciled with what we know about the nature of children.”
Personally, I am holding an argument in favor of the age-consideration from a more philosophical point of view. As we know, there are laws saying that juveniles cannot drink, cannot drive and cannot marry. And the justification behind those laws is that people under 18 are not mature or responsible enough. The liberty to drive, to drink and to marry can all be seen as some forms of rights. Therefore, the society is restricting the juveniles’ certain rights based on their immaturity. However, many people under 18 are sentenced to the same punishment as adults, without consideration of the age and the fact of the immaturity of juveniles. It seems a little unfair for the society to bar the kids from the fruits of liberty based on their age yet not to consider their immaturity when they have to bear to thorns of laws. Therefore, I believe that the fact of age should be taken into consideration when life sentence is made in case not involving murder.
Source: Adam Liptak
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10scotus.html?_r=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with your assessment that age should be a consideration in court rulings. But while it may be true that minors are both immature and capable of change, that doesn't mean that adults are automatically mature and incapable of reform. One might argue that the fact that they are committing horrible crimes at all confirms their immaturity. And isn't it the nature of all humans (not just children) to go through lapses of judgment that they end up regretting and growing from? We shouldn't forget that everyone wants to enjoy the "fruits of liberty" no matter what age they are. Of course, by breaking the laws people forfeit this liberty. But such transgressions aren't a function on how old someone is. Crimes are committed by people of all ages due to lack of clear judgment, and crimes are redeemed by the same people due to a willingness to change that is part of human nature. So though it can be a factor, age (especially not as determined by a single cut off marker like 18 years) should not play a defining role in sentences.
Post a Comment