Juvenile Bile BY: Jessica Ainley

Picture this: A young man breaks into a woman’s house early in the morning. He forces the woman out of bed and beats her so badly that he breaks several ribs. Then, he ties her up with duct tape, covering her eyes and mouth and crams her into the back of a van. After driving to a nearby river, the male hogties the woman with electrical wire and throws her into the river with a towel over her head, drowning her. This is exactly what happened to Shirley Crook. She was murdered by a young man; a seventeen-year-old to be exact. Christopher Simmons received the death penalty for the crime he committed before reaching legal age. A recent Supreme Court ruling overturned this conviction, claiming that executing minors was cruel and unusual punishment and in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Well, is it?

Can juveniles distinguish between right and wrong effectively enough to be given the death sentence? An argument proposed by the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association which basically states that, even at such a close age to adulthood, like sixteen or seventeen, adolescents are not cognitively able to make judgments. Therefore, they cannot effectively decide what actions are permissible within a society and which are not. When looking at an article written specifically about the crime Christopher Simmons committed, Christopher talked about how “it would be cool to kill someone.” (Orlet, 2004) At that point, he and a few of his buddies began to plot out how they would perform the crime. After killing Mrs. Crook, Simmons was bold enough to brag about the murder to a neighbor, saying “I had to kill the b*tch. She seen my face.” ( Orlet 2004). This is murder in the first degree. (Premeditated) Simmons thought out and formulated a complete plan to successfully kill another human being. Simmons had also told his friends that “they would get away with it [murder]” because they were underage. He had specific mens rea (Latin for “a guilty mind, ” this means that he knew what the product of his actions would be) and by actually committing the crime, he had adequate actus rea (Latin for “ the wrongful act,” means that a criminal carried out and/or attempted a wrongful act towards society.) If an individual over the age of eighteen were to say the same type of statements, they would, without a doubt, receive the death penalty and it would not be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Just those few statements and ideas that Simmons had and carried out showed cognitive thought and a clear understanding of what he was about to do.

Due to the fact that eighteen seems to be a “magic number” of sorts, the Supreme Court justices decided that this is at what age an offender should be considered for the death penalty. Also, since Simmons’ sentence was ruled unconstitutional and reversed, this saved the lives of 72 other individuals who were on death row for murders committed while underage (Washington Post 2005).

The United States was one of only a handful of countries to still allow juveniles to receive the death penalty, which created an “international isolation” (Washington Post 2005). The other two countries are Iran and the Democratic Republic of Congo (PBS.Org 2005). Justice Scalia argued in his dissenting opinion that the decision should be left up to the states as whether or not to execute individuals for crimes they committed under the age of eighteen. Almost half of the states allowed juveniles to be executed-Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Texas, and Virginia.

The decision of the Supreme Court was absolutely appalling. Human beings are taught at an extremely young age the difference between right and wrong. My mother (and every other adult I can remember, actually) instilled in me the idea of the golden rule—Do onto others as you would have done onto you. I knew at the age of three, if not younger, that it is wrong to kill other individuals. Specifically in the case of Simmons, he committed cold-blooded murder. He murdered a person because he thought it would be fun. I completely disagree that an individual does not have the mental capacity at his age to make judgments on his actions. I have no sympathy whatsoever for someone who wants to seek a thrill illegally and especially by harming other individuals within society and society as a whole. If you can’t live by society’s rules, then you shouldn’t live amongst society.

The constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to every American Citizen. To kill another person denies them of this inalienable right therefore, the murderer should be denied the same rights as well. Also, there is a very fine line between seventeen and eighteen years of age. Most fail to realize that no state actually executes someone under the age of eighteen. The line is merely one of legality; one that society has defined. I remember when I was seventeen. Once I turned eighteen, the only thing that changed was my ability to partake in elections and serve my country. To say these kids didn’t know what they were doing is absolutely ridiculous from any standpoint. They were of sound mind and mental capacity. And besides…they aren’t executed as a juvenile…correctional systems wait until they cross the fine line and turn eighteen. I guess because, apparently, on your eighteenth birthday, you suddenly mature…because that’s the magic number, right?