Half of the world's prison population, a total of about nine million is held in the US, China and Russia. The United States holds the highest prison rate of 724 people per 100,000 people. With these statistics, it is no surprise that crime in America is covered in such great length by media outlets that spread across the spectrum. From “Cops” to “Making a Murderer” to any other documentary or newspaper headline. Although the criminal justice system in America is covered in such great length, the media and even the government seem to overlook some of the most mind boggling nooks of what really is the criminal justice system. From wrongful convictions to biased sentencing, increased technology and media coverage are working to expose issues like this, but still fail to uncover these sometimes-fatal flaws in the system. One in particular, seems to need more research: Juvenile incarceration and capital punishment. One most likely has heard the latter first and much more often, but both can play an equally significant and potentially detrimental role in the lives of many more than the average person might guess. In the American criminal justice system, juvenile incarceration and capital punishment are two issues that have been argued as right, wrong, and in some cases completely subjective, but are nonetheless issues that require more research, attention, awareness, perspective, and light. 

Along with an issue this complex and controversial, comes a long historical paper trail, thus serving as useful background information in building an argument. The United States is one of 7 countries that allows children to be put on death row, and has executed more juvenile offenders than all of the other countries combined. The first execution of a juvenile offender was in Massachusetts in the year 1642. However, the year of 1988 in particular was also an extremely important year for the United States of America in terms of the death penalty for adolescent criminals. Before this very influential year, even a fifteen-year-old minor could be a subject to a death penalty for capital crimes. In 1988, the United States Supreme Court refused to use capital punishment when dealing with cases that involved any minor under the age of sixteen. Nevertheless, the 1988 decision did not have as large of an influence as many American citizens may have thought or hoped for. Many states like the state of Texas, for instance, used capital punishment in the case of a minor for the last time in 2002. The U.S. Supreme Court has always called the execution of children a violation of the Constitution, and defining a child as every person under the age of eighteen years old. More recently, 19 out of 51 states have allowed the conduction of the death penalty over children who are both sixteen and seventeen years old. Ultimately, most sources and American citizens can centrally concur that the death penalty of children fewer than eighteen years old is immoral, for killing a child implies killing a weaker human being that simply required supervision and attention from the side of his parents. As each society tends to be more humanistic, the probability of the fact that an eighteen-year-old is as guilty as a grown-up criminal starts being completely neglected. However, some cases as well as several sources are often split down the middle into two perspectives – one was that death penalty for juveniles is completely normal, as the capital crimes they commit are sometimes even worse then those committed by the grown criminals; and the other side was that death penalty for juveniles is completely unconstitutional and absolutely immoral as they are only children and not mature grown ups able to be fully responsible for their actions.        In a system where most if not all decisions are based on written laws, codes, rights, and so forth, deciding whether or not a juvenile is to be tried as such or as an adult is a decision that cannot be made using a formula or rule book, though that would make life easier. This is primarily why so much controversy surrounds the topic. Think of all the parents in the United States for instance. Each parent raises their child differently and most are very protective, thus making it even harder to surrender control to the criminal justice system and hope justice emerges. However, what has yet to emerge is a viewpoint accepted by a majority of sources, making this issue both versatile and complex. The complexity simply stems from the fact that each juvenile is a different person, in a different area, who has committed a different crime. These factors and more are what make the issue both interesting and unique because though most recent sources believe juvenile incarceration is wrong and essentially pointless, it still happens in America. The decision on whether or not to sentence an adult to time in prison is a large undertaking, but this is multiplied and magnified by the media in the realm of the juvenile sector. Juvenile incarceration, though viewed negatively by most, also logistically does not help the fact that the United States is the leading country in incarceration percentage, and no correlation has been found between juveniles being tried as adults and sentenced to prison and juvenile crime decline. This issue both interests and affects me personally, as I am studying criminal justice and find that this displays a side to the criminal justice system not often seen or put into practice. However, in addition to the obvious criminal justice officials and juveniles that obviously care deeply about this topic, the justice system and how it operates is something that most if not all Americans should care about. Though the juvenile sector alone may affect a smaller percentage of people, and many Americans are currently and will be parents susceptible to this in the future, this still is a moral issue many Americans care about and voice opinions about whether it be via petitions or social media platforms. Even if this issue does not bother you, the criminal justice system behind the issue at hand is where we look for any and every law set forth by our government, including even our basic human rights as Americans, researching further will show you just how split some Americans are on this very controversial issue. 

In the case of the school shooting recently documented in West Liberty, Ohio a seventeen-year-old male brought a weapon into a school zone, shot two students, created mass panic, and even after he was arrested, students are still faced with fear in daily activities that should be mundane at worst and exciting at best. Because of the intensity of these crimes, this teenager not only should, but must be charged as an adult. He showed the reasoning capabilities of an adult by obtaining a weapon. He showed premeditation of location to discharge his weapon by showing up to his school where he knew there would be many easy targets and that he would be able to create the most panic if he committed his crime there. All in all, it would be foolhardy and unwise to try him as anything other than an adult. 

However, not all news outlets are in agreement that juveniles should even face the possibility to be charged as adults. CNN commentator, Laurence Steinberg, address the fact that in an upcoming case for the Supreme Court, they will be deciding on whether or not a life sentence with no hope of parole is appropriate and/or necessary for juveniles convicted of murder. Because juveniles are typically more short-sighted and less capable of making logical decisions, some would agree that even though these teens have committed murder, they should not be punished forever. However, murder is a horrific crime. It is permanent, since it involves death, so it only makes sense that the punishment for the crime should follow the pattern of permanence. And while juveniles can no longer be served the death sentence, life without parole is a just punishment for a murderer. Most sources find juveniles being tried as adults to be irresponsible and pointless, and another small percentage seemed to agree that sentencing juveniles to prison time was essentially feeding the problem of mass incarcerations while also imprisoning a minor. The different perspectives offered by each of the sources truly highlight what happens when a factor of the criminal justice system becomes so subjective, because although the decision-makers do their best to be fair and analyze all aspects of the case, someone will always be disappointed by the outcome, especially when dealing with the moral issue of juveniles in the court system. 

Though I have presented my audience with a wide variety of different perspectives throughout my research, it is my personal opinion as well as the opinion of many Americans and professionals that sentencing a juvenile to the death penalty is ultimately immoral and wrong. But who cares about this issue if they don’t have a homicidal child? Well, anyone that is a parent may want to stand by those who do, and anyone that pays taxes may want to look further into this issue as well. Money is not an inexhaustible commodity and the state may very well better spend our tax dollars on the old, the young and the sick rather than the long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists etc. In the United States, the cost of executing someone over giving them life in prison is often higher. This is because of endless appeals being allowed in most states where the average time spent on death row is over 16 years. It is estimated that a capital case resulting in execution costs $3-4 million, whereas the typical cost of keeping someone in prison is $30-35,000 a year or less than a million dollars for a typical life sentence. However, this figure does not include appeals and the increasing cost of health care as inmate’s age. The states of Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Montana and New Hampshire have all considered abolition due to the high cost of capital cases affecting their budget deficits. California will spend an estimated $137 million during 2009 on its 700 capital cases. Are you deterred by the death penalty? Do you remember the last execution in your state? Do you believe that you would actually be executed if you were found guilty of murder in the first degree? These are crucial questions that address the deterrence argument, and evaluate its true scope of deterrence. A recent survey of death row prisoners in several states showed that few of them actually gave much thought to what would happen to them and most did not expect to get caught in the first place. Do you believe that even if you were caught, convicted and sentenced to death that you would ever actually be put to death? Do you hear/read about executions taking place in the country as a whole and in your state in particular? If so does this information have any effect on you? If you are not aware of executions in your state how can you be deterred by them? A proper and successful punishment must be fair, just, adequate and most of all, enforceable. Society still views murder as a particularly heinous crime, which should justify the most severe punishment. Life imprisonment without parole is increasingly being used as an alternative to the death penalty. Imprisonment, while expensive and largely pointless, except as means of removing criminals from society for a given period, is at least enforceable upon anyone who commits a crime. Imprisonment and capital punishment aside, it is also important to look at the alternatives and prevention methods put in place by some states, or lack there of, as finding a deterrent to crime that people can actually see in practice is much harder than it seems. 

One method of deterring crime is improving detection rates. Just look at how people observe speed limits when they see a police car sitting on the side of the freeway and yet break the speed limit as soon as the risk is passed. Cold case units have been set up by many police departments which help reinforce the view that murder does matter and will not just be forgotten about. DNA profiling plays a big part in securing convictions. Should everyone's DNA profile be data-based at birth thus making detection of many murders and sex crimes much easier? If this was done and a suitable sentence of imprisonment passed involving a sensible regime combining both punishment and treatment, it would, I am sure, considerably reduce the incidence of the most serious and most feared crimes. 

It is estimated that Texas spent $530 million on 239 executions to the end of 2000 and will need to spend in excess of a billion dollars more (at today's prices) to process and perhaps eventually execute the other prisoners currently on death row there. These are vast sums of money. What thought has been given to investing this money into crime prevention? This, crime prevention to be more specific, is yet another helpful deterrent to crime that some critics have praised for its usefulness and ability to do its job. Surely what we all want are fewer murders and fewer victims rather than more executions. A murder is a tragedy and the subsequent execution of the culprit can be viewed as another tragedy. There has already been at least one victim and by executing the criminal we are adding another. Those 239 people in Texas had around 350 victims between them so that is nearly 600 deaths in all. Can we as a society find ways of preventing some of these tragedies before they happen? Can we control illegal drugs and gun ownership better? Can we stop kids getting totally out of control? Can we identify those with serious psychological problems before they commit awful crimes and leave a trail of victims? These are surely areas where investment in research and manpower would pay large dividends and would provide hope for the future. 

Today, there are 83 juvenile offenders, people who have committed crimes when they were of 17 years of age of younger, on death row. Most have committed heinous crimes such as murder, rape, or other violent crimes. During the past decade, the United States has executed more juveniles than any other nation in the world. Of the 123 countries with the death penalty, only the U.S. and Iran impose it on juveniles. Since America knows more about the workings of the brain and the effects a violent childhood can have on an adolescent, the U.S. should not implement the death penalty when it violates the very constitution, which is supposed to protect not only our rights, but the rights of those around us. A juvenile is someone who is psychologically immature or a person resembling an adult, smaller in size, and usually at or below the age of 18. A person's mind at age 18 or younger is not fully developed and they are not capable of making rational decisions. Executing juvenile offenders, or even sentencing them to death is absolutely wrong and immoral. 

In conclusion, cases from all over the country emerge, each one different than the last, resulting in a plethora of different outcomes involving different opinions and different arguments, which is precisely why writing an argumentatively driven essay about such a topic is so interesting. While most find juveniles being tried as adults to be irresponsible and pointless, another small percentage seemed to agree that sentencing juveniles to prison time was essentially feeding the problem of mass incarcerations while also imprisoning a minor. The different perspectives offered by each of the sources and perspectives truly highlight what happens when a factor of the criminal justice system becomes so subjective, because although the decision-makers do their best to be fair and analyze all aspects of the case, someone will always be disappointed by the outcome, especially when dealing with the moral issue of juveniles in the court system. After all, it is our country in which so many before us have fought to pave, and have fought to secure these rights, which we trust in the hands of the criminal justice system. Parent or not, wouldn’t you want to know what was going on behind the curtains of our government? 
