Executing juveniles demeans justice

Carlton

By ALFRED P. CARLTON JR.
President, American Bar Association

Thirteen years ago, Kevin Stanford's case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court reinvigorated the national debate regarding the execution of offenders under age 18.

Although the court was one vote short of banning the practice at that time, it has become even more clear that executing juvenile offenders offends our sense of decency, is not befitting a civilized nation and does not serve justice in any way. It now appears that Stanford's fate lies in the hands of the state of Kentucky.

While I do not excuse the crime or question the suffering it caused the victims, their family or their friends, I do know that we must stop executing people for crimes committed as children. I urge Gov. Patton to commute Mr. Stanford's death sentence to a prison sentence.

As a parent and as a lawyer, I know that there are fundamental differences between the teenagers and adults that I observe daily, differences that have been documented scientifically by such organizations as the American Psychiatric Association, the National Mental Health Association, the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

These important distinctions in brain development, impulse control, maturity and cognitive ability explain why we do not permit juveniles to vote, serve in military combat, enter into contracts, drink alcohol or make their own medical decisions.

Our federal government, 16 of the 38 states that permit executions in this country, and virtually all other nations of the world understand these differences and prohibit execution of child offenders.

So I am deeply troubled that some states in our nation, which views itself as a beacon for the civilized world and the embodiment of the rule of law, persist in a practice that defies international law and is so broadly condemned.

Although there have been reports of juvenile offenders being executed in other countries in recent years, all except the United States and Iran either have changed their laws or denied such executions took place.

The American Bar Association, which takes no position on the death penalty itself, does oppose the execution of juvenile offenders. Our position is not grounded on sympathy, but rather on common decency and fundamental justice and the notion that we should punish according to culpability. We should reserve the most severe punishment for the worst offenders. Executing child offenders is inconsistent with these concepts.

That does not suggest that teenagers do not understand the difference between right and wrong, or that they should not face punishment for violating society's laws. It does mean that they should not pay for their mistakes with their lives.

The moral force and legal justification for the death penalty, deterrence and retribution, simply do not apply in the case of juvenile offenders. Other teenagers, acting impulsively, typically lacking judgment and self-control, will not be deterred when we execute their contemporaries.

We dare not hold children accountable for their actions to the same degree as we do adults. To do so serves no principled purpose and only demeans our system of justice.