How To Prepare And Identify One Case In The Assignment Learn

To Prepareidentify One Case In The Assignment Learning Resource Cap

To prepare: Identify one case in the Assignment Learning Resource, “Capital Punishment of Young Adults in Light of Evolving Standards of Science and Decency: Why Ohio Should Raise the Minimum Age for Death Penalty Eligibility to Twenty-Five (25),” and consider how you might provide an evidence-based argument for 1 of the following positions: death penalty should be used for ages 18+, 21+, or 25+ (choose 1 age group), death penalty should be reinstated for juveniles, or death penalty should be used on juveniles based on their crime. Post a response to the following: propose an argument for one of the options and support your argument with evidence-based research. Your posts should be substantial (500 words minimum), supported with scholarly evidence from your research and/or the Learning Resources, and properly cited using APA style.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The debate over the ethical, legal, and developmental considerations surrounding the application of the death penalty to young adults and juveniles remains a contentious issue within criminal justice and human rights discourses. As societal standards evolve, particularly in light of scientific research on adolescent brain development and moral maturity, the rationale for imposing capital punishment on younger populations has been increasingly questioned. This paper proposes an evidence-based argument advocating for raising the minimum age for death penalty eligibility to twenty-five (25), emphasizing that individuals below this age category—especially juveniles—lack the requisite maturity, impulse control, and moral judgment necessary to ethically justify such a severe penalty.

Developmental Considerations and Legal Precedents

Scientists in neuroscience have demonstrated that the human brain, particularly the prefrontal cortex responsible for decision-making, impulse control, and moral reasoning, continues developing well into the mid-twenties (Casey et al., 2010). This scientific insight underscores the argument that individuals under twenty-five are inherently less capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions, including committing capital crimes, and are more susceptible to peer influence and impulsivity (Steinberg, 2014).

Historically, U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Roper v. Simmons (2005) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) have recognized the diminished culpability of juvenile offenders, effectively barring the imposition of the death penalty on those under 18. These rulings reflect a broader societal consensus that youthful offenders possess a reduced moral and cognitive capacity, which diminishes their moral blameworthiness and warrants differentiated treatment under the law. Extending this reasoning, it follows that individuals aged 18 to 25 still exhibit significant developmental differences from fully matured adults, necessitating caution in applying the death penalty.

Arguments for Raising the Minimum Age to 25

Proponents of raising the minimum age for death penalty eligibility argue that the recent advancements in neuroscience and developmental psychology should influence legal standards, leading to a more humane and scientifically informed justice system (Pardini et al., 2014). The key justification is that individuals in this age group still lack the necessary impulse control, moral judgment, and understanding of the long-term consequences of their actions—factors integral to moral and legal responsibility.

Empirical research supports this stance: studies have shown that early adulthood remains a critical period of brain development. For example, the maturation of executive functions, which regulate judgment and self-control, continues into the mid-twenties (Giedd et al., 2012). Consequently, executing individuals who are still in this developmental phase raises serious constitutional and ethical concerns, as it conflicts with evolving standards of decency and the principles of rehabilitative justice.

Furthermore, the societal implications of executing individuals in their early twenties or younger include the risk of irreversible errors due to incomplete cognitive and moral development. Since sentencing minorities and young adults to death can disproportionately impact marginalized communities already vulnerable within the criminal justice system, raising the age limit aligns with principles of fairness and equity (Borum et al., 2015).

Counterarguments and Rebuttals

Some critics argue that age should not be a deciding factor, emphasizing that certain heinous crimes warrant the death penalty regardless of age. However, this perspective overlooks the scientific consensus that even offenders closer to full adulthood still retain developmental vulnerabilities. The U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Roper v. Simmons explicitly acknowledged that juvenile offenders are less morally culpable, providing a legal foundation for extending similar reasoning to young adults. Moreover, statistically, most courts and policymakers advocate for a nuanced consideration of age, criminal history, and mental health, rather than blanket policies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, existing scientific evidence and evolving legal standards support the proposition that the minimum age for death penalty eligibility be raised to twenty-five. This approach reflects a commitment to humane justice, acknowledging ongoing brain development during early adulthood, and aligns with international human rights norms opposing the death penalty for individuals who lack full moral and cognitive maturity. Ultimately, policies grounded in empirical research foster a fairer, more ethical justice system that recognizes the importance of developmental science in criminal justice policy.

References

Borum, R., et al. (2015). Juvenile justice and the death penalty: An empirical analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(2), 165-173.

Casey, B. J., et al. (2010). The teenage brain: Implications for research and policy. National Academy of Sciences, 107(30), 10425-10430.

Giedd, J. N., et al. (2012). Brain development during adolescence: Evidence from neuroimaging. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(1), 99-113.

Pardini, D. A., et al. (2014). Neurodevelopmental correlates of impulsivity and risk taking in young adults. Psychological Medicine, 44(13), 2749-2759.

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.