Juvenile Offenders & Equal Justice
by Under our current system, juveniles convicted of the same class felony as adults often get harsher sentences. Requiring a juvenile convicted of a class B felony to be sentenced under class C felony guidelines, allows the law to acknowledge the difference between juvenile and adult offenders. This takes public safety into consideration by allowing the case to be handled in adult court due to the severity of the crime. Being a juvenile would then be properly acknowledged as a mitigation defense for the rest of juvenile offenders.
The Court uses a number of arguments that apply not only to juveniles facing the death penalty, but are true for all juvenile offenders.
Three general differences between juveniles under 18 and adults demonstrate that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders. Juveniles’ susceptibility to immature and irresponsible behavior means “their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.” Thompson V. Oklahoma. “Their own vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment,” Stanford V. Kentucky. ”The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character,” Thompson.
How can State legislatures apply these facts to juvenile offenders who don’t commit capital crimes? State legislatures should pass a law requiring that juveniles waived into adult court be sentenced by the guidelines for the felony one class below that for which they are convicted of. It should be retroactive and juveniles sentenced before the evidence used in Roper, showing that the juvenile brain is different, should be re-sentenced as a result of this new factor.
Under our current system, juveniles convicted of the same class felony as adults often get harsher sentences. Requiring a juvenile convicted of a class B felony to be sentenced under class C felony guidelines, allows the law to acknowledge the difference between juvenile and adult offenders. This takes public safety into consideration by allowing the case to be handled in adult court due to the severity of the crime. Being a juvenile would then be properly acknowledged as a mitigation defense for the rest of juvenile offenders.
From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed. Indeed, “the relevance of youth as a mitigating factor derives from the fact that the signature qualities of youth are transient; as individuals mature, the impetuousness and recklessness that may dominate in younger years can subside,” Johnson.
When will State Legislatures apply new facts to the law? Probably never because juveniles have no lobbying power. In Wisconsin, the Tavern League is a powerful lobbying group that has a heavy influence on the State’s lax drunk driving laws. The havoc created by drunk drivers on Wisconsin roads in injuries, deaths and property damage, is far more significant than the crimes the State’s juveniles commit. Yet, one must accrue five drunk driving citations to attain a felony. This, while juveniles are buried in prisons for life, and adults who commit similar or worse crimes get plea bargains and walk out of prison after a couple of years. When science tells us juveniles have a greater potential to change than adults, why wouldn’t we design a system that takes advantage of that?
Please write your Congressman and ask, and refer them to this blog. For more information on our legal system read my other blogs as well as my books that are posted on my website www.politicsandjustice.com. Essays of a Penitentiary Philosopher breaks down the failings of our system and Preemptive Strike is a novel on human trafficking.
Liked it
