Capital Punishment for Juveniles Justified
...s friends about what he was going to do. He is simply a danger to society. Death seems fitting for this juvenile. Abolitionists argue that juveniles aren’t competent enough to understand what they are doing is wrong. Lee Bolton, whose son has been living on Texas death row for 9 years since being convicted for a murder committed when he was seventeen says, “It’s wrong to kill a juvenile because they aren’t fully aware of the consequences of their actions.” (qtd. in Farrell). I completely disagree with this point of view entirely. Is a seventeen year old that much different than an eighteen year old? If the murderer had his eighteenth birthday the morning after committing the crime, does this mean his mind is now developed enough to understand the difference between right and wrong but wasn’t the day before? I don’t think so. Ms. Bolton goes on to say, “If they at least have to be 18 to vote or go off to war, they should be at least 18 before you can kill them. I just really think those lives need to be saved.” (qtd. in Farrell). I don’t understand what voting and going off to war have to do with the fact that Ms. Bolton’s son murdered someone. This is the point that seems to slip through the cracks during debate. He murdered someone, and now he must pay the consequences. I could retaliate by saying if juveniles at the age of seventeen are not competent enough to know that killing is wrong, then maybe they shouldn’t be able to acquire a driver’s license until the age of eighteen. “A bright-line rule categorically exempting 16 and 17 year olds from the death penalty—no matter how elaborate the plot, how sinister the killing, or how sophisticated the cover-up would be arbitrary at best, and downright perverse at worst,” wrote Alabama Attorney General Troy King (qtd. in Farrell). I believe that we are placing the idea into these juveniles heads that they cannot be punished for committing murder because they are not of age, thus manifesting more murders by juveniles. The argument that killing is wrong, therefore killing a murderer sentenced to death is wrong just doesn’t hold any water in my opinion. “We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing,” said Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick (qtd. in Duin). Mr. McCarrick of course doesn’t go on to explain how it is that we can teach that killing is wrong. He simply makes a bold statement without facts to back it up. Mr. McCarrick goes on to say, “We cannot defend life by taking life.” (qtd. in Duin). This wasn’t the case for Adriane Hockett. Adriane was shot and killed in a Tennessee parking lot moments after she left her Mother’s side. The two men who killed Adriane were looking to kill a white person to “put themselves on the map.” Instead they killed Adriane, a 12 year-old black girl (Farrell). Adriane’s killers are now on Tennessee’s death row for another murder (Farrell). In this particular case, putting these juveniles to death for the murder of Adriane Hockett would have saved another’s life. This is bloodshed that could have been prevented. Abolitionists also argue today that death row inmates who die by lethal injection may commonly experience acute pain making it a cruel and sometimes even tortuous process (Graham). I can completely understand this point of view. Regardless of the crime the individual committed, even I, as pro-death penalty as I am, do not want to torture the individual to death. That would go against everything that I stand for, and make me no better than the criminal. However, abolitionists believe the death penalty should be completely abolished base...