Capital Punishment of Minors
...rry for their act or to tell the world that he/she has learned their lesson. After the criminal has passed away, what does he care about the people on this earth? What does he care about the people he hurt after he’s dead and gone? The death penalty for teens is even more heinous, in my eyes. Under U.S. law, a minor is in the extreme supervision and influence of the parent or guardian. Therefore, if a minor commits a crime, the minor doesn’t go to jail. Instead he goes to counseling and then, maybe, juvenile detention, where he might spend a few nights and days, at the most. And the adult in charge of the minor gets fined or gets punished in the proper manner, depending on the situation. For instance, in the case of the teenage sniper shooter, Malvo wasn’t awarded the death penalty because of this law. He was in the direct sphere of influence of John Allen Mohammad. His lawyers saved him from the death penalty by claiming that Mohammad had brain-washed Malvo. At the time of the shootings, Malvo was only seventeen years old. He didn’t know the full extent of his actions. Yes, he should be punished for the murders he committed, but not by giving up his life; but instead, by serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison. Another reason why I think capital punishment for a minor is horrendously wrong is that until a person is about twenty-five years old, the person’s brain can’t calculate risk properly. That is why crime gangs target young teens instead of middle aged people. The young teens have the muscle, of course, but they also don’t completely understand the extent of their actions. I don’t think that a teenager should be punished with his life because his brain hasn’t developed enough to understand everything that the person does. Therefore, I completely agree with the Supreme Court on its ruli...