Explore BrainMass

Death Penalty for Juveniles

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

On March 1, 2005, the Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juveniles. The case of Roper vs. Simmons led to this decision.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision to abolish the death penalty for juveniles? Explain the pros and cons of imposing the death penalty as a consequence for heinous crimes juveniles commit. (Use references/cite sources.)

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 7:37 am ad1c9bdddf

Solution Preview

I totally agree with the Court's decision to abolish the draconian and inhumane use of the death penalty against juvenile offenders. Every other Westernized industrial country had abolished the practice of using the death penalty for juvenile offenders except for the U.S. until the 2005 decision by the Court. This weighed heavily in the decision made by the Court with many of the justices citing this swing ...

Solution Summary

This solution provides an opinionated discussion on the death penalty for juveniles.

See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

Criminal Justice

In late February, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty is "unconstitutionally cruel" when applied to people who committed the crime for which they were sentenced, before they reached age 18. The Court ruled that the death penalty cannot be applied to people who committed their crimes as juveniles.

There are many arguments in favor of and against this ruling. Use the Discussion Board to post your opinion of this ruling, in the context of any or all of the following:

The ruling's adherence to or differences from the intent of the juvenile justice system, as it has evolved over the years

The ruling's ethical implications

How the reasoning behind this ruling could or could not be applied to certain offenders in the criminal (adult) justice system

Victim's rights

View Full Posting Details