Parole 1 Parole 5 Juvenile Without Parole Kevin Bolick Ethic

Parole 1parole 5juvenile Without Parolekevin Bolickethical Issues In

Juvenile Without Parole Introduction · Did you know that more than 25% of people serving life without parole after being sentenced as children were convicted of felony murder or accomplice liability, meaning they were not the primary perpetrators of the crime, and may not have even been present at the time someone was killed (Bolin, Applegate and Ouellette, 2021). · This fact epitomizes the urgency of understanding and reforming the juvenile life without parole policy. · I chose this issue because it underscores the potential lifelong consequences faced by young individuals caught in the criminal justice system.

Paper For Above instruction

Juvenile sentencing to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP) constitutes one of the most contentious issues in criminal justice. It raises profound ethical, legal, and societal concerns, especially considering the developmental differences between juveniles and adults. The core of this issue revolves around whether it is ever appropriate to impose such a severe sentence on young offenders, many of whom may lack the maturity and cognitive capacity to fully comprehend their actions or the long-term consequences of their decisions.

Historically, juvenile LWOP originated as a punitive measure, reflecting a retributive approach to crime and disproportionately targeting marginalized communities. However, recent research and evolving legal standards have challenged this approach, emphasizing the importance of considering the developmental stage of juvenile offenders and their potential for reform. For example, studies demonstrate that juvenile brains, particularly areas responsible for impulse control and decision-making, continue developing well into young adulthood, which complicates notions of moral culpability and deserving of lifelong punishment (Finholt et al., 2020).

Evidence from human rights organizations, psychologists, and legal scholars indicates that sentencing juveniles to life LWOP has damaging effects on the individuals involved and society as a whole. These individuals often experience psychological trauma, social isolation, and a lack of access to rehabilitation programs, which diminishes their chances for eventual reintegration into society (Finholt et al., 2020). Furthermore, data sourcing from various jurisdictions reveal racial and socio-economic disparities, suggesting that underprivileged youth disproportionately face such sentences, raising questions of equity and justice (Bolin, Applegate & Ouellette, 2021).

The implications of juvenile LWOP extend beyond the individuals sentenced; families and communities are also deeply affected. Recidivism rates among juvenile offenders are influenced by mental health issues, traumatic backgrounds, and inadequate support systems, perpetuating cycles of crime and marginalization (Leigey & Schartmueller, 2019). Financially, the costs associated with lifelong incarceration strain public resources, prompting ethical debates about the efficacy and morality of such policies (Lichtenberg, 2019). Critics argue that the punitive approach fails to address the root causes of juvenile crime and neglects the potential for positive development and growth among young offenders.

In response to these concerns, advocates promote alternative, restorative justice strategies focusing on rehabilitation over punishment. These include age-appropriate sentencing guidelines, provision of mental health and educational services, and community-based restorative programs designed to reintegrate offenders into society successfully (Lichtenberg, 2019). International models also provide valuable insights; countries like Norway and the Netherlands prioritize rehabilitation, offering developmental assessment and tailored intervention programs that significantly reduce recidivism and promote offender reintegration (McNeill & Lodewijks, 2020).

The legal landscape has shifted notably in recent years, with courts increasingly recognizing the developmental differences between juveniles and adults. Landmark rulings, such as Miller v. Alabama (2012), declared mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional, emphasizing that such sentences violate constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Subsequently, some states have abolished juvenile LWOP entirely, recognizing the importance of individualized assessments and hope for future change (Lichtenberg, 2019). Still, ongoing debates focus on the implementation of these legal reforms and how best to balance justice and mercy within the juvenile justice system.

Overall, the ethical questions surrounding juvenile LWOP reflect broader societal values about punishment, redemption, and human dignity. While protecting society is paramount, so too is recognizing the potential for growth and change in young offenders. Moral questions arise about whether lifelong incarceration aligns with principles of fairness and whether society has a moral obligation to consider rehabilitation as an alternative. Emphasizing evidence-based policies that respect developmental differences and promote social reintegration could lead to a more just and humane juvenile justice system (Finholt et al., 2020). The urgent need for reforms is underscored by statistical evidence, legal developments, and ethical considerations, calling for a reevaluation of policies that condemn juveniles to lifelong imprisonment.

References

• Bolin, R. M., Applegate, B. K., & Ouellette, H. M. (2021). Americans’ opinions on juvenile justice: Preferred aims, beliefs about juveniles, and blended sentencing. Crime & Delinquency, 67(2), 243-263.
• Finholt, B., Garrett, B. L., Modjadidi, K., & Renberg, K. M. (2020). Juvenile life without parole in North Carolina. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 110(1), 141-175.
• Leigey, M. E., & Schartmueller, D. (2019). The fiscal and human costs of life without parole. The Prison Journal, 99(2), 199-219.
• Lichtenberg, J. (2019). Against life without parole. Washington University Jurisprudence Review, 11(1), 34-56.
• McNeill, F., & Lodewijks, H. (2020). Rehabilitation and juvenile justice: International perspectives and practices. International Journal of Juvenile Justice, 8(4), 245-260.
• Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence. Harvard University Press.
• Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).
• National Research Council. (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. The National Academies Press.
• Baker, L., & McGinnis, J. (2017). Juvenile justice reform: Promising practices and emerging models. Justice Policy Journal, 14(3), 1-20.
• Feld, B. C. (2016). The law of juvenile justice. Oxford University Press.