A Relic of the Past

Iran.

Nigeria.

Saudi Arabia.

The Unites States of America.

That's a list of every country in the world whose justice systems execute juveniles for crimes they have committed - a list that has been shrinking over the past 10 years, as the governments of Yemen, Pakistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo banned such executions.

Hopefully the list will get at least at least one country shorter by next fall, as the U.S. Supreme Court will revisit the constitutionality of juvenile executions during their upcoming term.

The capital punishment system in America is broken - even if one believes a person can commit an act so evil the government has the right to put the person to death, it is nearly impossible to ignore the statistical evidence of unfairness in the application of the death penalty - and on top of that, we execute juveniles as young as 16.

We may not trust their judgment when it comes to driving at night, consuming alcohol or voting in any election, but we suppose their judgment in committing a crime is sound enough they deserve to die as a result.

There is Constitutional precedent for an outright ban of juvenile executions, set recently by the Supreme Court when it outlawed the execution of the mentally retarded. The justices accepted the reasoning that if an individual cannot fully comprehend the gravity and permanent effects of their crime, they should not be executed for it.

The same argument can sensibly be extended to juveniles. As Supreme Court judges on the losing side of a recent case involving juvenile executions argued, "neuroscientific evidence of the last few years has revealed that adolescent brains are not fully developed, which often leads to erratic behaviors and thought processes in that age group."

The justices went on to say, "the practice of executing (juveniles) is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society."

While legal momentum been building against juvenile executions, public opinion also seems to be heading in that direction. A Virginia jury recently refused to execute convicted sniper Lee Boyd Malvo, a candidate for juvenile execution if indeed one exists.

Observers originally expected Malvo's case to serve as a catalyst for renewed support of juvenile executions, but the jury's refusal to administer the "ultimate sanction," as Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft phrased it, is evidence that more and more people are beginning to think sensibly about the death penalty.

Executing teenagers barely able to grow facial hair is certainly not on par with a civilized society.

It's not right for the government to end anyone's life; their only responsibility is to protect society from dangerous individuals, which can be done easily with incarceration. But even if one thinks the government should have the right to execute criminals, adolescents - those most able to be reformed - should certainly be excused.