Applications of Mens Rea and Juvenile Culpability



Applications of Mens Rea and Juvenile Culpability

Introduction

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court banned the execution of mentally retarded persons. This decision, Atkins v. Virginia, cited the underdeveloped mental capacities of those with mental retardation as a major factor behind the Justices' decision. Adolescence is a transitional period during which a child is becoming, but is not yet, an adult. An adolescent is at a crossroads of changes where emotions, hormones, judgment, identity and the physical body are so in flux that parents and even experts struggle to fully understand (Griffin, 2006).

Overview of Stanford v. Kentucky (1989)

Petitioner in No. 87-5765 was approximately 17 years and 4 months old at the time he committed murder in Kentucky. A juvenile court, after conducting hearings, transferred him for trial as an adult under a state statute permitting such action as to offenders who are either charged with a Class A felony or capital crime or who are over the age of 16 and charged with a felony. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death.

The State Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence, rejecting petitioner's contention that he had a constitutional right to treatment in the juvenile justice system, and declaring that his age and the possibility that he might be rehabilitated were mitigating factors properly left to the jury. Petitioner in No. 87-6026, who was approximately 16 years and 6 months old when he committed murder in Missouri, was certified for trial as an adult under a state statute permitting such action against individuals between 14 and 17 years old who have committed felonies. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death.

The Court affirmed, rejecting the contention that the sentences violated the Eighth Amendment.

First, in determining whether a punishment violates evolving standards of decency, petitioners failed to prove a settled national consensus against the execution of 16- and 17-year-old offenders. Of the 37 States that permit capital punishment, 15 decline to impose it on 16-year-olds and 12 on 17-year-olds.

Next, the Court rejected the argument that the laws cited by petitioners and their amici which set 18 or more as the legal age for engaging in various activities, ranging from driving to drinking alcoholic beverages to voting are of any relevance to this case. According to the Court, “it is absurd to think that one must be mature enough to drive carefully, to drink responsibly, or to vote intelligently in order to be mature enough to understand that murdering another human being is profoundly wrong, and to conform one's conduct to that most minimal of all civilized standards”.

Finally, the Court also rejected petitioners' argument that capital punishment of 16- and 17-year-old offenders should be invalidated on the ground that it does not serve the goal of deterrence because juveniles, possessing less developed cognitive skills than adults, are less likely to fear death; and it fails to exact just retribution because juveniles, being less mature and responsible, are also less morally blameworthy.

Overview of Atkins ...