La PEna De Muerte En AdolecEntes

The Ethics of Life:
An in-depth look at youth offenders facing life in prison in the United States and the justice system that treats them



















Silvino Edward Diaz
12/01/07
ETH – 2050: Ethics and ContemporaryLife
Prof. Julie Anne Ragatz
I Introduction: A Question of Clemency
The affairs and implications of juvenile criminality are sensitive and complex. Much is argued about the development of the adolescent brain and its incapability of dealing with decisions; yet, much is not known. Scientists have proven, through resonance imaging techniques,that there are, in fact, remarkable differences between the adult and adolescent brains, especially in the areas of reasoning and responsibility. However, the ambiguity in knowing with certainty when such process of development, such leap from childhood/adolescence to adulthood, comes to conclusion has maintained a heated debate, and vast disparity of opinions, within the society in general; theUnited States is no exception. Though juvenile criminality and youth offenders are not unknown to the world abroad, the United States of America has received much notoriety for its position on severe offenders. The U.S. Supreme Court allows, and finds constitutional, sentencing youth offenders charged with violent misconduct, such as first degree murder and felony murder, to life in prison withoutthe possibility of parole. Currently, the U.S. houses over 2,225 offenders all over the country, in comparison to the 12 offenders facing the same situation all over the world (Ofra Bikel, “When Kids Get Life”).
The question at hand, which I deem to call “a question of clemency,” is whether or not the United States ensures and promotes the rehabilitation of these offenders, whether or notit seeks the best interest for them. This question of clemency is an extremely ethical consideration, because it explores the rights of a mysterious youth, one which we do not fully comprehend. This question explores also the behavior of such youth: whether or not it has the capability of reasoning, reflecting, and understanding the actions it commits. The question being asked now, after the 2005ruling against death penalty for youth offenders by the Supreme Court, is whether or not we can assign such harsh punishment to a group of people which, under severe circumstances, or unknown factors, violates the establishment. The question of clemency asks: is it ethical to condemn our youth? The following report will feature a brief history of the United States legal stance on the subject oflife to youth offenders, a debate portraying the contrasting notions shared by Americans, and a final reflection of my personal belief on the topic, in order to answer “the question of clemency.”

II An American History of Violence and Penalty
The United States reprimands more harshly and often than many other countries; this is a statement which is pretty clear, and known, in our justicesystem. However, when it comes to juvenile justice, our fair country has not always maintained such standards. There was a time, during and after the turn of the century in 1899, when our government and our people shared a common notion about the difference between juveniles and adults; it was understood that juveniles should be treated differently than adults because they were, in fact, differentfrom adults. The popular belief across the board was to claim that they owned, and deserved, the potential to change and develop; hence, juvenile offenders would not be judged as harshly as adult offenders. As a result, juvenile courts were established under the belief that the youth offender should be examined, personally, socially, emotionally, and psychologically, and be prepared for...