Juveniless Death Penalty

Juveniles and the Death Penalty

Introduction to Corrections

Stephanie L. Calvert

December 15, 2007

Juveniles and the death penalty is a hotly debated issue in the criminal justice system. There are two different views on the death penalty some are for and some are against the punishment. Some see juveniles as young and influential and deserve a second chance to clean up and become a productive member of society, while others feel the punishment should fit the crime; no matter what age.

To better understand this issue, let’s start with an explanation of the death penalty. The term death penalty has only meaning, and that meaning is putting a condemned person to death. This is the ultimate punishment for those convicted of
murder or other serious capital offenses. The United States Supreme Court has ruled the death penalty is not “cruel and unusual punishment in every instance.” (Law Dictionary, 2003)

Now one must understand the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments that are put in place that rule the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. The Eight Amendment was put into place in 1791 into the Bill Of Rights. This amendment declares that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” (Oxford University Press 2005). This leaves one with the question as to what is cruel and unusual punishment. “Criminal sentences that are inhuman, outrageous, or shocking to the social conscience are cruel and unusual.” The Court has never provided meaningful definitions for these characteristics. (Law Encyclopedia, 1998)

The second amendment that was mentioned that deals with the death penalty is the Fourteenth Amendment.
This amendment was adopted in 1869 after the Civil War and “intended to incorporate the ‘privileges and immunities’ enumerated in the Bill of Rights at the level of the states, and compel state authorities to ensure ‘equal protection of the laws’ for all their citizens.” (Oxford University Press 1992, 2005) This amendment was put into place mainly due to the abolishment of slavery after the civil war to ensure African Americans equal protection, but it states that all citizens of the United States are ensured equal protection from and under the law. (Oxford University Press
2005)

There are two cases that are substantial to the topic of juveniles and the death penalty. The first case is that of Thompson v. Oklahoma and the second is Stanford v. Kentucky.

The significance in the case of Thompson v. Oklahoma (487 U.S. 815, 1988) was that it established a national standard that sentencing defendants under 16 to death constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. In 1983, when he was 15 years old, Wayne Thompson helped to kidnap and kill his abusive brother-in-law, Charles Keene, who had repeatedly beaten Thompson's sister and other members of their family. Thompson's own life would later be spared in a Supreme Court decision which recognized that both society and the law are works in progress. (Oklahoma Lawyers)

Grady County prosecutors charged four suspects with Keene's murder--Thompson, his half-brother Tony Mann, and two friends, Richard Jones and Bobby Glass. The state decided to try the cases separately. Before the 15-year-old Thompson could be tried as an adult, however, the prosecution had to prove the prospective merits of the case and convince a district court that there was no reasonable hope of his rehabilitation. A psychiatric examination found that Thompson was mentally competent to stand trial. Police records showed violent behavior in Thompson's past, including arrests for crimes ranging from shoplifting to assault. Prosecutors successfully convinced the court that he should be tried as an adult. Keene's murder had been especially gruesome. He had been abducted and savagely beaten. His throat and abdomen had been slashed, he had been shot twice, and his body had been weighted with a concrete block before his killers dumped the body into a river. The prosecution introduced three grisly color photographs of Keene's corpse during the trial, after which Thompson was found guilty. In Oklahoma's justice system, trials to determine guilt are separate from a subsequent phase to determine sentencing. Before the death penalty can be applied, a state statute requires proof that "aggravating circumstances" were involved in a capital crime. During the sentencing phase, the prosecution reintroduced the graphic photographs to demonstrate the cruel nature of the murder. The jury agreed that Keene's murder met the criteria for the death penalty. Like his three accomplices, Thompson was sentenced to die (Glass was later killed in prison, while Jones' conviction was overturned). (Flaherty, 2002) Thompson's lawyers appealed the sentence. Oklahoma law held that because Thompson had met the criteria to be tried as an adult, he was eligible to be punished as one. The appeals court accepted Thompson's contention that reintroducing two of the graphic crime photographs during the sentencing phase of the trial was a prejudicial prosecution tactic. In light of the amount of other evidence against him, however, the court found that the jury would have passed the death sentence regardless of whether or not they had seen the inflammatory photographs. The appeal was rejected. (Oklahoma Lawyers )

In the case of Stanford v. Kentucky (492 U.S. 361, 1989) it was ruled that the death penalty for juveniles at 16 was not cruel and unusual punishment. (Oxford University Press, 2005) This case involves the shooting death of 20-year-old Barbel Poore in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Petitioner Kevin Stanford committed the murder on January 7, 1981, when he was approximately 17 years and 4 months of age. Stanford and his accomplice repeatedly raped and sodomized Poore during and after their commission of a robbery at a gas station where she worked as an attendant. They then drove her to a secluded area near the station, where Stanford shot her pointblank in the face and then in the back of her head. The proceeds from the robbery were roughly 300 cartons of cigarettes, two gallons of fuel, and a small amount of cash. A corrections officer testified that petitioner explained the murder as follows:
"[H]e said, I had to shoot her, [she] lived next door to me and she would recognize me. . . . I guess we could have tied her up or something or beat [her up] . . . and tell her if she tells, we would kill her. . . . Then after he said that, he started laughing." (Cornell University, 1998) After Stanford was arrested, a Kentucky juvenile court conducted a hearing to determine whether or not he should be tried as an adult. A state law provided that anyone charged with a capital crime, or who was over the age of 16 and charged with a felony, could be tried as an adult. Because of the seriousness of Stanford's crime and his long record of juvenile arrests, the juvenile court certified him for trial as an adult. Stanford was convicted of murder, first-degree sodomy, first-degree robbery, and receiving stolen property, and was sentenced to death and 45 years in prison. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence, rejecting Stanford’s “demand that he has a constitutional right to treatment.” 734 S. W. 2d, at 792. Finding that the record clearly demonstrated that “there was no program or treatment appropriate for the appellant in the juvenile justice system,” the court held that the juvenile court did not err in certifying petitioner for trial as an adult. The court also stated that petitioner’s “age and the possibility that he might be rehabilitated were mitigating factors appropriately left to the consideration of the jury that tried him.” (Champion, 2004) In this case it was proven that Stanford admitted to guilt, and was competent to stand trial. His appeal did go to the Kentucky Supreme Court and was over-ruled. His decision for treatment was left to the jury, and the jury here convicted him of murder. The jury felt that he was old enough to know the difference between right and wrong and what he did was wrong.

What do you think of when you think of a 14 year old juvenile?
I think of troubled youth that are influential still in their behaviors, but still know the difference between right and wrong. The same as well with a 16 or 17 year old juvenile. Many, when asked this, would think of their own children and see nothing wrong. That their children do know what is right and what is wrong. The above juveniles mentioned in the cases probably did know that what they were doing was wrong, but had a criminal past behind them that fueled these heinous acts. For their actions, they were sentenced to death. Many feel that the sentence imposed be wrong due to the ages of the defendants. Yet, the states overruled them in saying that the Eighth Amendment was not violated. I support the death penalty, and feel that the court followed all procedures and the sentence imposed was just. In conclusion, I feel that the punishment should fit the crime, and the punishment in these cases has.

Bibliography

Champion, D. (2004). The Juvenile Justice System-Deliquency, Processing, and the Law 4th ed. . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall .

Cornell University. (1992,1998,2005). Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 12 December, 2007, from Cornell.edu: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0492_0361_ZO.html

Flaherty, L. T. (2002). Summary of Thompson V. Oklahoma 487 U.S. 815 (1998). American Psychiarty , 1-4.

Law Dictionary.
(2003).

Law Encyclopedia. (1998). West's Encyclopedia of American Law.

Oklahoma Lawyers . (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2007, from www.faster.com: http://www.law.enotes.com./american-court-cases/thompson-v-oklahoma