Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Thiel College-The Death Penalty

Thiel College-Comment Project No. 5

The neuropsychology issue raised in juvenile death penalty cases before the U.S. Supreme Court has jumped to non-death penalty cases like juvenile life without parole. Do you think brain development cases will further seep into juvenile criminal jurisprudence?  Explain your position in detail.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Student #26
I think that brain development will not be a good argument to bring up for defending a person. There are many states where they have children as young as 14 being treated like adults and taking the consequence of their actions. These states have the right ideas but I personally think 14 is too young. When young adults graduate high school they will be able to vote, get married, and even buy tobacco so wouldn't they be mature enough to be treated like adults in court cases? Our brain may not develop fully until we are 24, but young adults who are 16 and above understand what's right and wrong and should take the consequences they deserve.

Anonymous said...

Student #8

It depends on the situation, but more than likely it would not in most cases.There are children who are old enough to comprehend what they're doing and should be treated like adults, but then there are special cases where the child's brain would be under developed, like in cases of mental retardation. Children who have the capacity to commit serious crimes know the difference between right and wrong, and thus deserve to be punished.

Anonymous said...

student #2

I do believe that brain development should be taken into consideration. While taking their brain development into consideration they also should look at their education and how they are doing in school or what problems they have come upon, they should also review their home life and medical records. If there is proof of drug involvement and proof of the juveniles getting into trouble that could be related to parental guidance and having no parental supervision. They may not have the sense of whats right or wrong due to the environment or area they are living in.
In the case of looking at medical records the investigators should thoroughly look for any disorders such as bipolar disorder. When finding that in the process of the juvenile's brain development they should convey that to the court and find different or better options for them. Therefore, the juveniles need to be competent and their brain development will be thoroughly looked at in the future of juvenile criminal jurisprudence.

Anonymous said...

Student No. 6
I think brain development cases will seep into the juvenile criminal jurisprudence. In Miller v. Alabama said that state laws mandating life in prison without the possibility of parole for those younger than 18 offend the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. That decision was part of a trend at the court of treating even the worst juvenile offenders differently from adults. There are already laws that help juveniles and I believe that one can use brain development as a mitigating factor along with other mitigation to defend juveniles. One must also look at other life occurrences and see If their brain development is actually below average. However I do believe this can be a tactic to help defend juveniles in the future.

Anonymous said...

Student #16

Roper v. Simmons established a very clear and somewhat unfortunate precedent that will lead to juveniles getting off for crimes because of the brain development issues raised in that decision. The Roper decision will eventually trickle down and affect most if not all juvenile offenses and juvenile sentencing decisions. This is an issue that I feel deserves to be addressed and I am glad that it has finally come to light. Juvenile offenders are by their very nature immature and lacking in a great deal of life experience. Sentencing them to death or life in prison for actions that they may not be able to fully appreciate just seems wrong to me. I don't think that the brain development issue should make a juvenile not responsible for their actions, but rather make them eligible for additional help and rehabilitation services that would help them become productive members of society. I certainly hope that this issue births a new era in juvenile offender rehabilitation and doesn't just give them a means to achieve more lenient sentences and a quicker return to crime.

Another issue that I feel should be addressed is the actual age at which brain development ends. I could very easily see this expanding the pool of affected offenders and leading to more early releases, and lighter sentences.

Anonymous said...

Student 20..

Yes i do. i believe this issue will eventually seep into every part of child criminal acts. Because people want to make excuses for kids, no matter how heinous the crime. I think at 16 years old although the brain is not fully developed they should be responsible for their actions. Barring mental illness a 16 year old should know not to kill. If they are going to accept brain development as an honest criminal defense then, noone up until their 24th birthday should be able to get the death penalty or be able to be tried as an adult.

Anonymous said...

Student No. 23

I believe that this idea will seep into most of the juvenile cases because people care to justify the action of a kid. Some cases may deal with the underdevelopment of the brain, but most children know what they are doing when they commit the gruesome crime. I believe that brain development should be considered in some cases, not all. I feel that if a juvenile commits a crime, they know exactly what they are doing and no justification is needed.

Student 27 said...

#27
I believe that everyone will use this as a defense since there are so many undecided people on that topic. I agree that a human brain developes up till 24 years old, but at what age does ones ability to know the difference between right and wrong develop? Until that question is answered, people will bring it in as a defense. All they need to establish is doubt in to a jury's mind and it will be effective.

Anonymous said...

Student No.21

Yes i do believe that this issue will seep into criminal acts that are performed by children. I believe even though people argue that the brain of a child isn't fully developed, they still will know that killing another human is wrong. I believe in non murder cases, that brain development should be considered. I believe that if a juvenile commits a gruesome murder, they deserve to face the punishment of the legal system.

Anonymous said...

Student No. 28

I do believe that this line of defense will seep into other criminal actions committed by children. It is such a tricky topic to deal with since it is said a person's brain is not fully developed until the age of 24. However, most of the children who commit such crimes are fully capable of knowing right from wrong and therefore should face the consequences of the criminal justice system. A mitigating factor here would be mental retardation of a child where in that case, he or she might very well not know right and wrong. This defense will stay in effect and begin to seep into other non-death penalty, criminal cases because it's such a hard topic to comprehend and deal with. Most of the time, these kids know what they're doing and even go to the extent of planning it out with full intent. I believe they should face the punishment like everyone else for their actions.

Anonymous said...

Student No. 3

I believe that the current line of defense will seep into other criminal actions committed by children. The brain is so hard to understand due to the fact that the human brain is not fully developed until the age of 24. Most children that commit crime are fully capable of understanding right from wrong and should face the consequences that are set in place for the crime committed. There are special cases in which mental retardation is a factor and the children may very well not know right from wrong. Most of the time children know right from wrong and can understand what they are doing is wrong. I believe that they should face the consequences of their actions even though they are minors.

Anonymous said...

Student no. 9

I do believe that this will start going into cases involving criminal acts done by juveniles. But, I am not too sure if it will actually work. I feel that brain development relating to crimes can be difficult to put together in an effective way. Of course, this is a case by case situation, but in most situations, the person being charged normally knows the difference between right and wrong. So with that, it would be difficult to put brain development into it. I feel that this is also similar to trying to put a specific number to an iq level to say they are mentally incompetent or not.

Anonymous said...

Student No. 15
I believe that brain development will be continuously brought into juvenile crime cases. But I do not think it will stand up in court for much longer. Brain development can only go so far in a case it cannot be an excuse for all crimes committed by juveniles. Once juveniles get to a specific age they know the difference between what is right and wrong. So I believe that brain development in juveniles should only be used in cases that are death penalty or LWOP.

Anonymous said...

Student 24:
I do believe that brain development cases will continue to make their way into juvenile criminal jurisprudence. It is a pretty well-known fact that our brains do not fully develop until about 24 years old. Some of the opposition claims that juveniles should know right from wrong, even if their brains are not fully developed yet. However, some juveniles might not know how to distinguish between right and wrong. Their parents or guardians may have done a pretty poor job teaching them and instilling appropriate values into the juvenile. Another issue that needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that mental and behavioral disorders are becoming more common these days. What is even more common is the fact that the juveniles are not able to get the appropriate help they need because of financial instability, parental neglect, or even not being diagnosed in the first place. Regardless of which one it is, all of these reasons are important to acknowledge when talking about brain development and the juvenile cases that it affects.

Anonymous said...

Student No. 1

I think that brain development has the potential to become the next big consideration in the criminal justice system. As technology advances it becomes more imperative that the mentally ill, especially juveniles are attended to accordingly. Right now the Supreme Courts is currently discussing and debating the idea of lethal injection and its constitutionality, brain development is the next step. Regarding juvenile cases, I think that evolving standards of decency should start to take hold. I do not believe that executing juveniles or lengthy prison sentences are a good thing. It hurts them more; they need a completely different kind of care than a prison can offer. If the United States is going to focus on a rehabilitation model then the way juveniles are treated has to change. I am in favor of just punishment, and the deterrence models, but children and juveniles are a different story. When it comes to brain development the game changes, we are unfortunately trying to draw a bright line of brain development. There is no bright line, we cannot say that at age whatever people gain full brain development, and it is different for everyone. There needs to be a case by case standard that determines brain development. Furthermore, I believe that evolving standards of decency is flawed in a way. We are too focused on what is decent and it forces us to ignore what could be correct. The focus needs to shift from the standards of decency to data analysis and accurate studies to determine how to solve these problems that we are faced with.

Anonymous said...

Student #7

I do think that brain development will be considered a defense more and more. There had been much debate over the years to see if trying someone under the age of 18 "a juvenile" can be sentenced with the death penalty. Although there is a difference between being considered an adult and your brain being fully developed. You are considered an adult in the eyes of the law at age 18 but your brain keeps developing well past the age of 18. Prosecuting someone under the age of 18 for the death penalty is wrong yes. But saying you will not prosecute them because of their brain development is a slippery slope to other defenses. The lines of defense will be blurred and the defense of a child will seep into the defense of non juveniles. The whole purpose to not sentencing juveniles to the death penalty is yes their brain development, they are not mature enough and do not know enough to understand the consequences of their actions. But then again their are those children who are sociopaths who fully understand the nature of their crime and will only commit more after being released. Like I said, any brain development defense whether it is a juvinille or an adult is a slippery slope for other brain development defenses that might be beyond the scope of reasonable.

Anonymous said...

student no.22

I believe that the neuropsychology defense will further seep into juvenile jurisprudence and will become a slippery slope from there.
The defense that the juvenile brain is under developed is a hard defense to overcome, mainly because it is backed by science. I believe that this will be used in other juvenile cases because there is precedent for it. This defense has already influenced states "evolving standards of decency" to nullify the death penalty for juveniles and this defense will, in my opinion, be used similar to the 8th Amendment to judge other juvenile cases. Furthermore, I believe it will start a slippery slope in regards to jurisprudence because it is almost a "catch all category", a very ambiguous defense that at its utmost conclusion, states that an individuals brain is not fully developed till he or she is 24. This will not only affect juvenile cases, but some adult cases as well.

Anonymous said...

Student #10
Yes, I do believe brain development cases will further seep into juvenile criminal jurisprudence. Brain development should always be taken into consideration with juvenile cases especially serious ones because their brains aren't fully developed. I think they should also look at other aspects of the juveniles, such as life at home, education, and medical records. For example, many children in today's society grow up in poverty and without father figures and this could affect their brain development and ability to know right from wrong. Investigations should also be made into drug involvement, attitude in school and any gang membership. I also think considering that the brain doesn't fully develop until age 24 that this will affect some adult cases as well. I think in this case of a serious crime leading to the death penalty or life without parole brain development will be investigated more so than minor crimes simply because we want to know why people do the things they do.

Anonymous said...

Student #18

I believe that brain development will further come into play in terms of juvenile criminal cases/ There are certain acts that are committed by juveniles that they may have committed without having a clear understanding of what they were doing and the wrong that they were being a part of. I think that this should come into consideration when looking at cases involving juveniles, because I don't think that juveniles should be given the same sentence for a particular crime that an adult might do. The adult should have a better understanding of what they have done, while juveniles are not completely matured at such a young age to understand the potential of their actions.

Anonymous said...

Student No. 17

I believe that neurological issues will become more important in juvenile death penalty cases. Brain development plays an enormous role in cognition, and if it is not fully developed how can we determine that the person fully understands what is happening. In cases of the intellectually disabled, we do not execute. So, why should we execute a 12 year old when we would not execute an adult that has the functional capabilities of a 12 year old?-- we should not. Juveniles have "here and now" thinking, they may understand that if they kill someone they are not coming back, but they may not be thinking that they could potentially be executed for their crimes. They have a very limited range of thinking and it is not fair to execute them for it.

Anonymous said...

Student #5

The brain development in juveniles is always going to be an issue dealing with neurological issues. some of these cases the person guilty doesn't understand the act or punishment of doing the act. therefore, Juveniles should not fall victim to the death penalty because they will probably commit another crime later on and execute them then. only if the crime commits murder.

Anonymous said...

Student #13
The understanding of neuropsychology will continue to play a large role in the development of trial outcomes regarding juveniles. Studies have shown that juveniles do not have the same cognitive abilities as adults, and therefore do not have the capacity to fully consider actions before pursuing them. Based on this concept, no punishment of a juvenile should be equivalent to that of an adult, yet juveniles today are being tried as adults for particular crimes. Even though a juvenile cannot be sentenced to the death penalty, I believe future neurological study will prevent juveniles from being subject to life sentences as well.
Further neurological study will also reveal the average age that the brain is fully developed, which as of now is considered somewhere in the mid-20's. So, if the brain is fully developed at age 25, that is seven years after a person can be tried as an adult, so from age 18 to 25 there is not full cognitive ability. Perhaps the study of the percentage of crime of those 18-25 compared to other age groups could help solidify this question. Whether neurological studies prove this or not, the basic concept of cognition in juveniles should be enough to consider juvenile jurisprudence.

Anonymous said...

Student #19

I believe that the argument will eventually seep in to juvenile criminal jurisprudence. Due to a juvenile being so young they may not understand what they are doing, due to their brain not being fully developed. If a juvenile is not able to understand the seriousness of the crime he or she committed, he or she should have a less strict punishment. This could teach the juvenile that the crime was wrong so it will not happen again. This would be better than taking a juveniles life.

Law and Justice Policy said...

END

Anonymous said...

Student no. 12

I do not think neuropsychology issues raised in juvenile death penalty cases will seep any further into the juvenile justice system than into the LWOP cases; the death penalty and LWOP are comparable, so it is expected that considerations taken with regard to one would be applied to the other. Lesser crimes with lesser punishments are not comparable to capital cases. There is no "bright line" to be drawn in order to apply the death penalty/LWOP to someone with a certain IQ, background, mental illness, etc. in adult cases, and because children develop at such different rates, there can certainly be no "bright line" drawn in juvenile cases. As standards of decency evolve and death penalty methods are evaluated, I believe the death penalty will be phased out anyways. Lastly, juveniles have a better chance at rehabilitation because of their continuing brain development; adults do not necessarily have that opportunity.

Post a Comment