Ethics Focus: Life Without Parole
After the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional for juveniles (Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 2005), many people thought that this solved the problem of inappropriate sentences for juvenile murderers. What has happened, however, is that now many juvenile murderers are receiving Life-without-Parole sentences (LWOP). The latest available information shows that some 2,225 juveniles are serving LWOP sentences (Feld, 2008).
Critics argue that LWOP sentences are also inappropriate for juveniles. The same rationale that influenced the Supreme Court to rule capital punishment unconstitutional for juveniles-that juveniles are developmentally immature and therefore not fully accountable for their actions-applies to LWOP sentences. In other words, many argue that the psychological immaturity and impulsivity of juveniles should also rule out a sentence of life without parole. Feld (2008), for example, argues that juveniles' lack of complete development should dictate a sentence of no longer than 20 to 30 years for even the most serious crimes.
In the Roper decision, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that he would leave the decision of the penalty for a murder by a juvenile in the hands of the jury in that case. He argued that the jury should take into account the possible immaturity of the juvenile and decide whether to impose the death penalty. So, perhaps, he would argue for such jury decisionmaking concerning life without parole. Recall also, however, that youth (immaturity) is supposed to be a mitigator that juries consider to reduce sentences down from the death penalty. In practice, though, juries often use youth (young age) as an aggravator; juries often think that if an offender is young he represents a greater danger and therefore should receive a harsher or longer sentence. [Note: In June 2012, in a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court said states can no longer hand out automatic life-without-parole sentences to juveniles convicted of certain violent crimes.]
-Do you think age should be considered a mitigating circumstance? Why or why not?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of Ethics Focus: Life Without Parole
After the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional for juveniles (Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 2005), many people thought that this solved the problem of inappropriate sentences for juvenile murderers. What has happened, however, is that now many juvenile murderers are receiving Life-without-Parole sentences (LWOP). The latest available information shows that some 2,225 juveniles are serving LWOP sentences (Feld, 2008).
Critics argue that LWOP sentences are also inappropriate for juveniles. The same rationale that influenced the Supreme Court to rule capital punishment unconstitutional for juveniles-that juveniles are developmentally immature and therefore not fully accountable for their actions-applies to LWOP sentences. In other words, many argue that the psychological immaturity and impulsivity of juveniles should also rule out a sentence of life without parole. Feld (2008), for example, argues that juveniles' lack of complete development should dictate a sentence of no longer than 20 to 30 years for even the most serious crimes.
In the Roper decision, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that he would leave the decision of the penalty for a murder by a juvenile in the hands of the jury in that case. He argued that the jury should take into account the possible immaturity of the juvenile and decide whether to impose the death penalty. So, perhaps, he would argue for such jury decisionmaking concerning life without parole. Recall also, however, that youth (immaturity) is supposed to be a mitigator that juries consider to reduce sentences down from the death penalty. In practice, though, juries often use youth (young age) as an aggravator; juries often think that if an offender is young he represents a greater danger and therefore should receive a harsher or longer sentence. [Note: In June 2012, in a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court said states can no longer hand out automatic life-without-parole sentences to juveniles convicted of certain violent crimes.]
-Do you think age should be considered a mitigating circumstance? Why or why not?