ESSAY

[Title]

[Name of Student]

[Name of College/University]

In a society, people recognize that those who are under eighteen years of age do not and cannot function as adults as they lack decision-making. That is the reason the law takes special steps juveniles for their actions. In fact, prohibits individuals under the age of eighteen from voting and serving in the military. But the US is almost one of the alone countries that allow the execution of juvenile offender ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"K68TYTJs","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Bradley 2002)","plainCitation":"(Bradley 2002)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":118,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/PlleVRGT/items/CQKEXC9U"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/PlleVRGT/items/CQKEXC9U"],"itemData":{"id":118,"type":"article-journal","title":"The Juvenile Death Penalty and International Law","container-title":"Duke Law Journal","page":"485-557","volume":"52","issue":"3","source":"JSTOR","archive":"JSTOR","abstract":"[The United States is almost alone among nations in permitting the execution of juvenile offenders. Citing this fact, along with a variety of legal and historical materials, litigants and scholars are increasingly claiming that the United States' use of the juvenile death penalty violates international law. This Article examines the validity of this claim, from the perspective of both the international legal system and the U. S. legal system. Based on a detailed examination of the United States' interaction with treaty regimes and international institutions since the late 1940s, the Article concludes that the international law arguments against the juvenile death penalty have significant weaknesses. As the Article documents, for a number of reasons, the United States has consistently declined to consent to treaty provisions restricting the juvenile death penalty, and it has consistently declared the human rights treaties that contain such restrictions to be non-self-executing. In addition, since at least the mid-1980s, the United States has persistently objected to-and thereby legally opted out of-any customary international law restriction on the juvenile death penalty. The Article also argues that, even if the international law arguments against the juvenile death penalty were more persuasive, they would not provide a basis for relief in U. S. courts. For separation of powers reasons, courts properly will decline to apply international law to override the considered choices of the president and Senate in their ratification of treaties. In addition, because of concerns relating to both separation of powers and federalism, courts properly will decline to apply customary international law to override state criminal punishment, especially when (as is the case here) the political branches have expressly declined to do so by treaty. This potential gap between evolving international law norms and U. S. judicial enforcement is less disturbing than some commentators appear to assume-it simply means that the juvenile death penalty issue, like other difficult issues of social policy in the United States, must be resolved through U. S. democratic and constitutional processes.]","DOI":"10.2307/1373162","ISSN":"0012-7086","author":[{"family":"Bradley","given":"Curtis A."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2002"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Bradley 2002). For number of reasons that the US has consistently been declining the international treaties and also concerns the both federalism and separation of power. The constitutionality of a juvenile for an offence committed is a concern that the US Supreme Court has been evaluating since the javelin death penalty was restored in 1976. However, it is the violation of international law and many scholars and litigants have increasing been claiming that the use of the juvenile death penalty is immoral and illicit.

New scientific research reveals that juveniles cannot be equally be alleged responsible to the same level as the adults. In this regard, the UCLA's Department of Neuroscience, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the Harvard Medical School, have reported that both the pre-frontal lobes and frontal lobes of the brain for regulations of impulse judgment and control are not completely developed in the adolescents ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"BBZz322I","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Juveniles and the Death Penalty n.d.)","plainCitation":"(Juveniles and the Death Penalty n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":120,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/PlleVRGT/items/YWDHXCMS"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/PlleVRGT/items/YWDHXCMS"],"itemData":{"id":120,"type":"webpage","title":"Juveniles and the Death Penalty","container-title":"American Civil Liberties Union","abstract":"As a society, we recognize that children, those under 18 years old, can not and do not function as adults. That is why the law takes special steps to protect children from the consequences of their actions and often seeks to ameliorate the harm cause when children make wrong choices by giving them a second chance. The law prohibits people under eighteen from voting, serving in the military and on juries, but in some states, they can be executed for crimes they committed before they reach adulthood.","URL":"https://www.aclu.org/other/juveniles-and-death-penalty","language":"en","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",4,23]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Juveniles and the Death Penalty n.d.). This growth will be completed between the ages of eighteen to twenty-two. Moreover, because of immaturely, juvenile are more prone to be coerced by adults, and often used as a pawn in the more sophisticated criminals.

However, on 27th January, the Supreme Court decided to review whether it is a violation of the constitutional ban on unusual and cruel punishments. The decision came after Christopher Simmons, seventeen years old was the death sentence was overturned. In which four of justices the death penalty of the juvenile as ‘inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"hUkSCt5Z","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Juveniles and the Death Penalty n.d.)","plainCitation":"(Juveniles and the Death Penalty n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":120,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/PlleVRGT/items/YWDHXCMS"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/PlleVRGT/items/YWDHXCMS"],"itemData":{"id":120,"type":"webpage","title":"Juveniles and the Death Penalty","container-title":"American Civil Liberties Union","abstract":"As a society, we recognize that children, those under 18 years old, can not and do not function as adults. That is why the law takes special steps to protect children from the consequences of their actions and often seeks to ameliorate the harm cause when children make wrong choices by giving them a second chance. The law prohibits people under eighteen from voting, serving in the military and on juries, but in some states, they can be executed for crimes they committed before they reach adulthood.","URL":"https://www.aclu.org/other/juveniles-and-death-penalty","language":"en","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",4,23]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Juveniles and the Death Penalty n.d.).

References

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Bradley, Curtis A. 2002. “The Juvenile Death Penalty and International Law.” Duke Law Journal 52(3): 485–557.

“Juveniles and the Death Penalty.” American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/other/juveniles-and-death-penalty (April 23, 2019).