June 21, 2011
"The Supreme Court and the Sentencing of Juveniles in the United States: Reaffirming the Distinctiveness of Youth"
The title of this post is the title of this new piece by a doctor in a forthcoming medical journal which in now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In the 21st century’s first decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has set two key constitutionally-based limits to punishment of juveniles. In Roper v. Simmons (2005) the Court barred imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by juveniles, and in Graham v. Florida (2010) it forbade life imprisonment without possibility of parole (LWOP) for juveniles who commit non-homicide offenses. Both decisions held these penalties violated the Eight Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment because they were disproportionate given juveniles’ distinctive cognitive, psychosocial and neuroanatomical characteristics. Roper and Graham reflect two decades’ long trends, one legal and one clinical, whose interaction will control the legal system’s approach to juvenile justice for some time.
Since 1980 more children, at younger ages, became legally susceptible to much harsher punishments (through trial as adults), yet over the same period clinical skepticism concerning the cognitive, psychosocial, and neuroanatomical development of youth that was required for the legal process, and the appropriateness of these sentences, grew. In Roper and Graham the Court resolved this paradox by siding clearly with clinicians . The Court’s adoption of a developmental model of culpability, with heavy reliance on cognitive psychological research concerning risk-taking, susceptibility to peer pressure and mutability of character, as well as MRI and fMRI studies of adolescent and young adult brain development, may produce future challenges to lengthy juvenile sentences, to broad provisions allowing transfer of juveniles for trial as adults and even possibly to younger juveniles’ competence to stand trial.
June 21, 2011 at 11:58 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "The Supreme Court and the Sentencing of Juveniles in the United States: Reaffirming the Distinctiveness of Youth":
I apologize for this ad hominem, but it addresses credibility. The author if a lawyer, working for the defense bar. He is located in Boston. That means nothing he utters has any validity. He is presumed to Hate America and Love the Criminal. Adulthood is at nature's puberty age, 14. 18 is a lawyer invented fictional age of majority. A lot happens at 14. Nothing special happens at 18 that doesn't happen at 40 or 60. One is getting experiences, and maturing from them as one does at 40 and 60.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 22, 2011 3:35:41 AM