Mind map by Khangal Baatar

Research question

khangal_baatar — 2025-04-03 15:57:59 UTC

Why should the death penalty be taken out of the juvenile system?

subtopic 1: is juvenile life without parole fair?

khangal_baatar — 2025-04-03 16:00:05 UTC

subtopic 2: why is it wrong for minors to be sentenced to death for their own wrong choices?

sanaiscarlett2 — 2025-04-03 16:03:05 UTC

subtopic 3: what were the obstacles for outlawing the juvenile death penalties?

khangal_baatar — 2025-04-03 16:05:32 UTC

Source 1

khangal_baatar — 2025-04-03 16:13:06 UTC

"States must henceforth make ''individualized sentencing decisions,'' in Justice Elena Kagan's words, rather than imposing mandatory life without parole. They must take into account a youth's age, maturity, family circumstances and history, potential for rehabilitation, and other factors. And states must engage in meaningful review of juveniles in prison so they have the opportunity to re-enter their communities if they are rehabilitated." "Juvenile Injustice." New York Times, 25 Nov. 2012, p. 10(L). Gale In Context: Global Issues, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A309809621/GIC?u=vern39182&sid=bookmark-GIC&xid=b4fd4958. Accessed 3 Apr. 2025.

Source 1

sanaiscarlett2 — 2025-04-03 16:18:09 UTC

in the article (Why Young People Should Not Be Tried As Adults in America) it claims that "The purpose of the juvenile justice system in the United States was to divert young people from the devastating punishments of criminal courts and to encourage rehabilitation based on the requirements of each wrongdoing", therefore sentencing a kid who is not an adult to death destroys the whole point of the juvenile system. https://www.juvjustice.org/blog/1425

Source 2

khangal_baatar — 2025-04-03 16:18:59 UTC

"The Court called life without parole “an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile … A 16-year-old and a 75-year-old each sentenced to life without parole receive the same punishment in name only.”¹¹ Limiting the use of life without parole did not guarantee such individuals would be released; it guaranteed a “meaningful opportunity” for release." (Joshua Rovner, April 7th, 2023)

Source 1

khangal_baatar — 2025-04-04 13:28:40 UTC

in 2002 a smaller proportion of states allowed the death penalty for mentally retarded defendants than when Stanford was decided. The Court treated the reduction in the number of states that allowed executions of these defendants as an objective indicator showing that the standards in the country had evolved against executing the retarded. To this analysis, the Court added the weight of its own judgment that the death penalty did not serve a deterrent function among the retarded, who were less culpable than other first-degree murderers because of diminished cognitive abilities.

Wiener, Richard. Monitor on Psychology, American Psychological Association, www.apa.org/monitor/jun05/jn. Accessed 4 Apr. 2025.

Source 2

khangal_baatar — 2025-04-04 15:48:58 UTC

Americans oppose the policy, as shown by widespread religious opposition to the death penalty, many laws that specially protect those under age 18, and juries’ reluctance to actually impose the death penalty on young offenders. This nationwide consensus against the juvenile death penalty was most clearly demonstrated by the long and growing list of states that banned the juvenile death penalty. The Supreme Court heard the Simmons case in October 2004 and on March 1, 2005, abolished the juvenile death penalty. ncrp_admin. “Banning the Juvenile Death Penalty: Success Through Funding of Nonprofit Advocacy and Coalition Work.” NCRP, 30 July 2023, ncrp.org/resources/banning-the-juvenile-death-penalty-success-through-funding-of-nonprofit-advocacy-and-coalition-work/.