Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Adrine Rodriguez
Abstract
When it comes to juvenile and adult offenders, they are viewed differently under the law. Crimes
committed by minors for example being accused of being an accessory to murder should not be
sentenced to life without parole, because under article 37 these types of sentences deem
unconstitutional. The supreme court has its views on juveniles and so do the state courts, basically
both courts demonstrate two different views on juvenile sentencing. The supreme court views that
juveniles are different from adults and should be treated as such, where state courts lump all
homicide cases the same even if there are dramatically differences in the cases. For an example
being an accessory to murder and committing the murder can possibly result in the same sentence.
Being an accessory to murder and an actual murderer are different and should be treated
accordingly in a sense of sentencing. Over all this paper demonstrates how the supreme court
established that children are different from adults, and how the juvenile court system is failing to
line of what should happen to them after the crime has been committed. Every crime committed
by juveniles differ and are most likely caused because of some sort of outside cause like abuse,
neglect, and many different types of behavior indecencies. Children are known to be different than
adults in every culture in the world, but not so much in courts that are in America. This is without
saying that every court in America is not doing its due diligence, because there are courts that are
trying to fix their juvenile court system. This is saying that all courts in America need to fix their
juvenile court system in a way that can meet the need of the accused as well as the victims.
Sentencing a juvenile to a life sentence for an accessory to murder could possibly be justified if
the criminal had prior knowledge of the murder itself before the crime was committed. What
happens if a juvenile criminal decides to commit a crime which does not include murder but gets
caught up and becomes an assessor to murder. One might ask are both crimes the same; if not,
what is different and what can be done to help protect juveniles’ rights.
In the United States a person under the age of 18, that commits a crime can be tried in
juvenile court. Unless under special circumstances from the judge that is overseeing the case,
establishes a waiver to be tried in criminal court. A juvenile can be tried in criminal court, which
would result in a harsher sentence. A judge is most likely going to establish a waiver for a juvenile
with any involvement in a murder case, possibly without fully understanding their involvement in
the actual murder. Crimes such as first and second-degree murder as well as being an accessory to
[Document title]
murder can all result in a life sentence. If all three of these crimes are seen different based off the
degree of the crime, then why should the sentence time be the same in some cases.
Before there was a juvenile court system children and adults were tried and sentenced the
same. It was not until late 1899 when the juvenile court system was established. This court was
put in place because there was a high percentage of offenders under the age of eighteen. This courts
main goal was to rehabilitate the youth. It was set that once they have served their time, they will
be able to not only function in society, but also contribute. Since the earliest time of the
development of our country children have been viewed differently than adults, which is why the
juvenile court system was put in place. Children demonstrate change and willingness more than
adults do. If an adolescent is being accused of being an accessor to murder while not fully
understanding how he or she even committed the crime, should not be subjected to having their
constitutional rights taken from them. Sentencing an adolescent to life imprisonment for accessory
of murder, in the cases where the adolescent had no intention on killing demonstrates revenue
The American Psychological Association, explains that there is scientific evidence that
shows that a person under 18 years old “lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their
decisions” (Steinberg 2009.) Sentencing juveniles to a life sentence while knowing that they
cannot fully understand the seriousness of their crimes and how they may affect others can be
debated as unconstitutional. Adult offenders understand the crimes that they have committed and
the consequences that come after, in a different sense they fully understand right from wrong.
Courts sentence juveniles based on crimes they are accused of committing, whether, their
involvement was minimal. There are numerous cases that result in juveniles being sentenced to
life without parole for being an assessor to murder. In some cases, the person who actually commits
[Document title]
the murder does not get charged, but the person who was an accessory to murder gets a life
sentence.
An example of a case when a juvenile is sentence to life without parole for being an
accessor to murder is in the case of David who was fifteen years old and Larry who was thirteen,
at the time of the crime. The boys decided to commit the crime of robbing a convince store. David
and Larry both explained that the crime that they will be committing would be robbery, nowhere
did David understand that he would be an accomplice to murder since, he only thought that they
would be robbing the store. Larry went inside the store possibly not knowing that he would soon
be a murderer, when he stepped into the store things went sideways and Larry murdered the clerk.
Larry then ran into the car that David was driving, while David did not fully understand that he
would be charged with being an accomplice to murder. The police then arrested both boys shortly
after and charged them both with murder. Larry already had a run in with the law, so he knew not
to incriminate himself, where David did not, and he told the police that Larry came up with the
plan and killed the clerk. At this moment David still did not understand his rights or the level of
the crime that he was accused of committing. Meanwhile there was not enough evidence to charge
Larry because he knew better then to incriminate himself. Shortly after David was accused with
felony murder and sentence life without parole. This case demonstrates what the supreme court
has expressed, which is how children are different than adults. In this case it shows that during the
time of the crime David was under Larry’s command, as where an adult offender normally commits
crimes under their own volition, so they can have total control over the situation (Moore 2014).
Cases like this where the defendant had no prior knowledge of a murder that would be taken place,
during the time of them committing a crime that is not homicide and being charged with murder
presents injustice. This is do to the court only looking in the best interest of the victim and not the
[Document title]
defendant when both sides should be taken into consideration. This is not saying that the victim
does not deserve justice, it just means that so does the defendant due to them being an adolescent.
Offenders that are charged with crimes such as accessory to murder at a prepubescent age
demonstrates that juveniles are capable of committing crimes just as much as an adult. Which also
shows that their state of mind is not at its full potential due to them being an adolescent at the time
of the crime rather than an adult when the crime is committed. When juveniles commit crimes at
such a young age, a person can have the capacity to commit such a heinous crime, while not fully
being aware at the time that it is wrong or unjust. Meanwhile an adult offender understands the
full concept of right from wrong before during and after the crime has been committed, which is
why adults are held accountable of their actions in a way that differs from adolescents. Over all
this means that children cannot see beyond the basic action of the crime as where an adult could
do so. There are multiple cases that result in juveniles being sentenced to life without parole for
crimes such as being an accessory to murder. Studies have shown that juveniles differ from adult
offenders in a cognitive aspect as well as in a fundamental way (Keller 2012). Which then brings
up the point that sentencing juveniles to life without parole may be unconstitutional, and
considerably wrong in the view of the supreme court. According to Keller, children are different
from adults on many levels, due to their brains not being at the full compacity of cognitive
development.
The law clearly explains that juveniles are different than adults and should be treated
accordantly. In the United States the Supreme Court expresses that juveniles are not the same as
adults which is why their punishments for crimes that they have committed should result in a
different sentence time then adults. Even though the supreme court established this, state courts do
not need to follow the same guidelines as the supreme court, which makes it difficult for juvenile
[Document title]
offenders to have a fair sentence time. The law is not always fair in a way that it does not always
serve what is best for the accused. In the United States you are entitled to a fair trial regardless of
what crime they have committed, because you are human, and the law acknowledges this and
grants you to be treated fairly. The supreme court have explained that juveniles need to be
rehabilitated rather than just given a sentence. Overall the judges that are appointed to juvenile
cases have the ultimate decision of a juvenile’s life, it all comes down to the court and the final
Another case that involved a juvenile being convicted and sentenced to life without parole,
is of a boy named Kuntrell Jackson. This young man was fourteen at the time of the crime. He
then was convicted solely on the theory that he was an accomplice to a murder and that an older
juvenile committed the actual murder (Freeman 2012.) Kuntrell believed that he was going to rob
a store, with no intention of being an accomplice to murder. He joined two other adolescents to
commit the crime of robbery, even though Kuntrell did not commit the act of murder he was still
subjected to a harsh sentence due to Arkansas law that made it mandatory that a life without parole
sentence must be inflicted for the conviction of homicide. The supreme court would say that this
lengthy conviction sentence is unconstitutional, yet courts still impose harsh sentences for
juveniles convicted of being an accessory to murder. Not all cases are the same and should not be
treated as such, this goes without saying that juveniles should not be held responsible of their
actions but expresses that courts too should be held responsible of these unjust sentences.
During the 1899 social reformers, formed opinions based off studies that show that children
offenders are not fully responsible of their behavior as well as actions, as adult offenders are
(Moore 2014). It was not until 1988 that the supreme court established executing juveniles under
the age of sixteen is a violation of their eighth amendment rights (Moore 2014.) Basically, up until
[Document title]
thirty years ago it was okay to execute juveniles, the courts established that a harsh sentence for
example execution was unconstitutional why is LWOP any different. Sentencing a juvenile to life
in prison is a violation of juveniles eight amendment right. The eighth amendment states that no
cruel and unusual punishment should be inflicted upon any human being regardless of any notion
that may or may not be a factor in their sentencing. According to “Felony Murder, Juveniles, and
culpability” the violation of the eighth amendment right applies when there is a form of cruel and
unusual punishment when sentencing a criminal that has been found guilty of a crime. The eighth
amendment was put in place for specific circumstances to protect the rights of the accused, one of
Juvenile courts are not solely based on the conviction, but primarily based on the
rehabilitation of the child. This is true because studies have shown that juveniles are more likely
to demonstrate change which is one of the main differences between juvenile and adult offenders.
Under the federal law every individual state has the right to regulate their laws in a way that best
fits their courts and crime rates. The juvenile court system main purpose is to regulate criminal
law committed by minors. Since the early 1990s the perception of juvenile court has skewed due
to juveniles committing higher degree of crimes for example murder. Juveniles can be charged
with first degree murder, regardless if they were an accessory to the murder or the one who
committed the murder itself. The judges are the ones that have the final say what the juvenile gets
charged with. It is up to the judge whether to try the case in juvenile court or turn it over to criminal
court where he or she will have a jury not of their peers, to sentence them based off the evidence
presented to them. Eventually the judge will have the final say in the sentencing time, but by this
time the juvenile is not a child in the eyes of the law, they are now an adult. When a juvenile is
charged with a crime for example, first degree murder by being an accessory, they are usually
[Document title]
faced with a life without parole sentence. Under the eighth amendment, LWOP for an offender
that is an accessory to murder is a cruel and unusual punishment. The reason for why it is a cruel
is because taking away a child’s ability to change when he or she have shown that they are capable
because not allowing them to have the right to be rehabilitated and better their life as one day being
an adult. They originally were sent to juvenile court to be rehabilitated verses remanded to life
without parole.
Under the constitution sentencing juveniles is a cruel and unusual punishment due to
juveniles one not fully understanding the fully capacity of their involvement in the crime.
According to the convention article 37, life without parole for a juvenile is a cruel and unusual
punishment, this article states that no person should be subjected to torture, cruel, or inhumane
punishment (Padilla-Frankel.) Courts have violated this article numerous times, by sentencing a
child to life without parole for accessory to murder is unconstitutional under the international law.
Courts have knowledge that juveniles are different from adults and that sentencing a juvenile to a
life sentence is unjust yet continue to do so. In anybody’s book the courts are demonstrating
hypocrisy, because of how they are sentencing juveniles, while it states in the law that juveniles
are different than adults and are protected under the law due to them not being a fully functioning
adult. In some cases, juveniles are violated and stripped of their life for crimes that they didn’t
fully understand they were committing, or better yet even committed the action themselves.
Overall juveniles are protected under the law of convention article 37, when juveniles are denied
If one commits a crime, they should be held accountable of their actions, with respects of
what punishment best fits the crime that a juvenile took part in. Juveniles that have been charged
[Document title]
with assessor to murder should be held accountable, but to a certain extent because they are an
adolescent and deserve more insight to how or why they are sentenced. Under the law juveniles
are different then adults and should be treated as such. Many people would say if you can not do
the time then you should have not done the crime, but most people do not take into account that
juveniles don’t always commit the crime itself and are an accessory to a crime that they possibly
When it comes to children we need to stop and look at what we can do to help rehabilitate
them and not lock them up to be forgotten about. Throughout this whole paper you have seen what
the courts say and do, but you don’t get an insight into the juvenile’s life nor a sense of who they
are. Just like this paper, courts are also not shown these important aspects that led to the crime
itself. Juveniles are perceived different than adults under the law, but when it comes to sentencing
in most cases this perception is blurred. If a child has been proven that they are different and
demonstrate change in contrast of an adult offender, then their sentencing time for crimes should
also be different. The Supreme Court and the Juvenile Court system has established that children
are different. Which then asks the question to why is sentencing for juveniles an issue in our
society. It makes no sense how all these findings and studies have still yet to make an impact on
the juvenile court system. There are many juveniles that have been victimized by the courts and
stripped of their lives, due to courts not considering all aspects of the case and not putting into
effect that children differ from adults in a cognitive and in fundamental aspects.
[Document title]
References
Authors, Table of. "Recent Decisions: Heinonline." Print Arizona Law Review (1985): 27.
: Preventive and corrective measures." Wisconsin Law Review (2015): (2), 203-218.
Fiorillo, S. E. "Mitigating after miller: Legislative considerations and remedies for the future of
Freeman, C. Supreme Court Cases of Interest. Criminal Justice, (2012) 26(4), 43-45,54.
Huston, A. "Jurisprudence vs. judicial practice: Diminishing miller in the struggle over juvenile
Jordan, K., McNeal, B., & Kovera, Margaret Bull. "Juvenile Penalty or Leniency: Sentencing of
Juveniles in the Criminal Justice System." Law and Human Behavior (2016): 40(4), 387-
400.
Keller, E. C. "Constitutional sentences for juveniles convicted of felony murder in the wake of
roper, graham j.d.b." Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal (2012): 11(2), 297-326.
Knight, E. D. "Brought back to life: Massachusetts supreme judicial court resuscitates parole
eligibility for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder." Suffolk University Law Review
Miller, K. "Sentencing and punishment: The missed opportunity for categorical rule against life
without the possibility of parole for juveniles miller v. alabama, 132 s. ct. 2455 (2012)."
University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy (2013): 24(2), 313-iv.
[Document title]
Moore, M. "Felony murder, juveniles, and culpability: Why the eighth amendment's ban on cruel
and unusual punishment should preclude sentencing juveniles who do not kill, intend to
kill, or attempt to kill to die in prison." Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law (2014):
16(1), 99-128.
Moriearty, P. L. "The trilogy and beyond ." South Dakota Law Review (2017): 62(3), 539-558.
violations in the united states: Languishing behind bars juveniles sentenced to life
without parole." Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law (2016): 33(3),
803-824.
Pimlott Kubiak, S., & Allen, T. "Public Opinion Regarding Juvenile Life Without Parole in
Shitama, M. K. "Bringing our children back from the land of nod: Why the eighth amendment
forbids condemning juveniles to die in prison for accessorial felony murder." Florida
Solmon, E., et al. "Who's in, who's out, and who's back: Follow-up on 59 juveniles incarcerated
in adult Prison For Murder Or Attempted Murder in the Early 1980s: Behavioral Sciences
and Law." Behavioral Sciences & the Law (2001): 19 (1), 97-108.
Steinberg, Laurence; Cauffman, Elizabeth; Woolard, Jennifer; Graham, Sandra; Banich, Marie