The death penalty is utilized as an optimistic view to alleviate much of what is
morally, and criminally wrong with our society. Yet in reality, capital
punishment does nothing to improve America’s justice system by allegedly
acting as a deterrent to the criminals. Nevertheless, Americans continue to
execute adults and children on dubious principles. The execution of children is
particularly outrageous. International and Federal standards sanction that
children are exempt from the death penalty; not in order to grant absolution for
their crimes, or to disparage the suffering of the victim’s family, but in
recognition of their immaturity and potential for rehabilitation. The cases of
juvenile offenders on America’s death row continue to reflect more than just
the specific concerns raised by their immaturity at the time of the offense, but
represent the more important justification for a punishment that is antiquated.
A closer look at capital punishment reveals problems that consist of a lack of
ethics regarding a child’s life, a possible enormous risk of wrongful
conviction, and a staggering amount of money spent that does not accomplish any
means of deterring others from committing murder. Foremost, in considering the
appropriateness of capital punishment is the importance of understanding the
federal laws, state laws, and an importance of international standards. Maryland
law and federal law deliberated that those under 18 are not adequately mature
enough to make adult decisions. Hence, those under 18 are not able to vote, they
cannot legally drink, nor are they able to join the armed forces. By this
reasoning, a juvenile whom the nation does not trust to make adult decisions
should not be executed for choosing to perform the immoral act of murder. The
Supreme Court arrived at its 1988 decision that, in effect, acknowledged the
rationale of cases involving minors; that there is an assumption that
adolescents are too young to understand the consequences of their actions, and
set the minimum age at 16 in the landmark case Thompson vs. Oklahoma.
Nevertheless, Melissa Sickmund, a senior research associate at the National
Center for Juvenile Justice, believes that the minimum age is a function of the
political landscape, “If the Supreme Court were to consider the 1988 case now
it would have to take into account the ever more popular tendency of the states
to try minors as adults” (Butcher 4). Likewise, International Standards
prohibit the death penalty against juvenile offenders, and organizations such as
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, American Covenant on
Human Rights, and Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those
Facing the Death Penalty agree that, “Persons below 18 years of age at the
time of the commission of the crime shall not be sentenced to death” (qtd. in
Amnesty International’s Campaign 2) and have been endorsed by the United
Nations General Assembly to help ensure universal ethical treatment of children.
According to Amnesty International, the United States of America has carried out
more documented executions of Juvenile offenders than any other country.
Ironically, the majority of these offenders that have been executed since 1990
were of serious or mental deprivation. These adolescent’s lifestyles consisted
of a regular use of drugs and alcohol, and the child held a considerably lower
than average intelligence. Many offenders had some type of brain damage, and
most had poor or inexperienced legal counsel; which resulted in a loss of
important information and incompetent representation. Unfortunately, even in
America we continue to practice the barbaric execution of children, continue to
ignore international standards, and sadly there are inherent problems because it
does not deter crime. Kevin Hughes, a diagnosed schizophrenic, provides a strong
case study of mitigating circumstances that were over looked in order to execute
a minor. Sixteen year-old Hughes, strangled and raped another child in March
1979. His relatives testified that Hughes suffered from, “. . .extreme mood
swings, hear[d] voices, and [would] often be out of touch with reality. His
elder brother say that Kevin ‘believed that he had magical powers, and that
there was some kind of magic that protected him. This was especially strange to
listen to, because it was obvious from all the bad things he went through that
nothing had ever protected him” (Amnesty International Report 25).
Furthermore, Hughes was diagnosed as suffering from brain damage as a result of
childhood abuse and had a subaverage IQ. In this case, the jury was not properly
instructed on how to review Hughes’ case, and the jury never heard evidence of
Hughes’ abuse and neglect in his childhood or his mental illness. Hughes was
sentenced to death in March of 1981, and hopefully an appeal will ensure for
clemency; in order for better mental health care for a boy who should not be
sentenced to death, but should be treated in a facility that can help his state
of mind. Psychologically, it is impossible to use the death penalty as a
deterrent, because those with no cognitive moral capacity are unable to
understand its use as a punishment. According to Ernest van den Haag, “Capital
punishment is regarded as unjust because it may lead to the execution of the
innocents, or because the guilty poor (or disadvantaged) are more likely to be
executed than the guilty rich” (Capital Punishment: A Reader 48). In
considering the claim of injustice by reason of innocence, a convicted man that
is found guilty, who is innocent, and if sentenced to be executed, the penalty
cannot be reversed. With this knowledge, a human being should not be morally
able to put a child to death when alternatives such as life in prison can
provide the same justice at a lower cost to America. This would serve as a
deterrent, inasmuch as those in prison could be rehabilitated. Likewise, the
child would not be able to become a martyr, and thus, his peers and community
could see him in prison for life; which is an obvious deterrent. The death
penalty is unlike all other sentences, because it is irreversible. Marietta
Jaeger, whose seven-year-old daughter was kidnapped, raped, and murdered
believes that the death penalty is wrong, “I say there is no amount of
retaliatory deaths that would compensate to me the inestimable value of my
daughter’s life, nor would they restore her to my arms or keep others from
committing murder. To say that the death of any person would be just retribution
is to insult the immeasurable worth of our loved ones who are victims” (qtd..
Amnesty International’s Campaign 12). Therefore, no notion of capital
punishment, as a deterrent, can be applied to children, inasmuch as the result
can be gained by a child serving a life sentence, with no possibility for
parole. Taking a life for another life solves nothing, except to guarantee a
tremendous expense to the state. According to Dieter, across the country, there
are less police working, prisoners are being released early, the courts are
overburdened, crime continues to increase, and the “economic recession has
caused cutbacks in the backbone of the criminal justice system” (Dieter 1).
Dieter cites that the recession has caused Florida a budget crisis that resulted
in the early release of 3,000 prisoners; Texas prisoners are only serving 20% of
their time and rearrests are prevalent; Georgia has laid off 900 correctional
personnel, and New Jersey has had to dismiss 500 police officers. Nevertheless,
these states, and many others, amazingly continues to place money into the death
penalty with no consequent reduction in crime. The higher cost to the state, is
due to the fact that the legal process in death penalty cases is very
complicated, and reflects the jeopardy of someone’s life. Death penalty trials
are longer and more complicated than non-death penalty murder trials. According
to Richard Dieter, “Over two-thirds of the states and the federal government
have installed an exorbitantly expensive system of capital punishment which has
been a failure by any measure of effectiveness. Literally hundreds of millions
of dollars have already been spent on a response to crime which is calculated to
be carried out on a few people each year, and which has done nothing to stem the
rise in violent crime” (2). Anyone on trial for his life should be expected to
mount an energetic defense. During a detailed trial that can include an
intensive use of experts and investigators; this can become expensive.
Furthermore, if convicted, death penalty cases require a sufficiently long
“due process” in hopes to ensure the guilt of the convict. Thus, such a
lengthy process will never be inexpensive. The enormous cost of death penalty
cases are realistically guaranteeing Americans a diminished safety, because of
the redirection of money towards legal resources that are being diverted from
effective crime fighting strategies. Examples of lack of money for innovations
like community policing can be noted in California and Texas. Before the LA
Riots, California achieved spending an extra $90 million per year on capital
punishment, yet somehow neglected the safety of the people. Texas, has over 300
people, 50 of which are juveniles, on death row, and on average is spending an
estimated $2.3 million per case, leading the country in executions of minors,
and yet its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country. Capital
punishment is obviously not deterring the crime rate, and America continuously
expends money on a punishment which does nothing but burden the people of that
state. Even with the phenomenal amount of money funneled into capital
punishment; it has been statistically proven that it does not deter murder. In
fact, crime committed by juveniles has increased steadily over the last few
years, “According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, juvenile homicide
arrests have increased by 170 percent in the last decade, while homicide arrest
for adults during the same period have increased 25 percent” (Butcher 3).
Deterrence depends on the possibility and ability of human responses to danger,
not the rationality of the person’s thoughts. Therefore, capital punishment is
not psychologically able to deter someone who has violated the law in fear of
the judicial procedure or society. In essence, van den Haag theorizes that
natural dangers, all dangers not deliberately created by legislation, are
insufficient. Therefore, fear of a natural danger must be reinforced by legal
punishment to those who violate the rules. These types of punishments keep most
people in compliance with the law. Yet, in the absence of natural danger, the
threatened punishment is light for the criminal violating the rules and, in this
case, obligation to the rules vanish. Elsewhere punishment deters. Therefore
there is a distinct bell curve to the notion of capital punishment in which it
does not work as a deterrent. In removal of a religions view, there are still,
“. . .two truths about the human person: human life is both sacred and
social” (Capital Punishment: A Reader, Bernardin 150) and regardless of human
merit or worthiness, a child is entitled to exist and hold a to chance for
rehabilitation. Distressingly, a young adolescent sentenced to death is deprived
from his natural self worth, his ability to rehabilitate, his potential, and
some kind livelihood. Realistically, when a human commits a crime, he should be
punished for his crime in an appropriate manner which deprives him of certain
pleasures, but not of everything life has to offer, which is what the death
penalty ensures. Nor should we punish a person in a cruel and unusual way, but
provide a sentence that requires the criminals to be punished by a severe
method; which life in prison does. The value of a human life is immeasurable
with all other values, and therefore the equating punishment for murder, the
death sentence, does not give provide retributionism, because value of one’s
murdered life does not equate to the value of another. A suggested Alternative
for reducing crime can be provided through evidence by New York State’s policy
on the death penalty. According to Dieter, New York does not utilize capital
punishment, by reason of a study presented by the NY State Defenders Association
found that the estimated cost to the state $1.8 million, just for the trial and
the first stages of appeal per defendant is too large of a burden. New York
experienced a decline in every major crime in 1992 by implementing an
increasingly popular concept of “community policing”. Community policing
became, “a strategy for utilizing police officers not just as people who react
to crime, but also as people who solve problems becoming an integral part of the
neighborhoods they serve” (Dieter 8). This program apparently works well when
the government can afford to increase the amount of officers, rather than taking
from existing numbers, leaving other work unattended. Crime rates can drop as
much as 30 percent as seen in Boston, where more officers are able to support
the community. The increasing costs of the death penalty are, in reality, making
America less safe because of the loss of financial and legal resources that are
presently being diverted from effective crime fighting programs. Implementing
programs which have been siphoned off because of the death penalty, and working
directly towards the front line goals on our war against crime would increase
the safety for all Americans. Money towards the police, correctional systems,
and neighborhood programs could install a safer community, and one where murder
is not the norm, but a less rare event. In conclusion, the above studies provide
evidence that the death penalty is severely expensive, and provides no real
justification for retributionism, safety for the society, or a notion of
responsibility for actions. Large sums of money that are focused on only a few
individuals produces no gauge of adequate results to justify their spending to
execute one person, while more effective and vital services to the community are
being sacrificed. The theory of the death penalty, in reality, was originally
utilized as a means to deter others, a solution to crime, which is impossible,
as noted by Jaeger, who’s daughter will never return and murder will still
continue. In the end, maturity, mitigating circumstance, and psychological
problems ought not to be by passed in order to gain a conviction for all,
especially for minors, who do need adults to protect their best interests,
regardless of a crime.

BibliographyAmnesty International’s Campaign on the United States. On the Wrong Side Of
History: Children and the Death Penalty in the USA. New York, NY: Amnesty
International Publications, May 1998. Amnesty International Report. “Juveniles
and the Death Penalty: Executions Worldwide since 1990.” Amnesty International
Act 50/11/98. (1998) Online - Internet. Available: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aipub/1998/ACT/A5001198.htm
Butcher, Matthew. “Are They Too Young To Die?” MSNBC. (1998) Online -
Internet. Available: http://www.msnbc.com/news/127366.asp Dieter, Richard C.
Esq. “Millions Misspent: What Politicians Don’t Say About the High Cost of
the Death Penalty.” Death Penalty Information Center. (1994) Online -
Internet. Available: http://www.essential.org/orgs/dpic/dpic.r08/html#sxn5
Stassen, Glen H., ed. Capital Punishment: A Reader. Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 1998.