Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Juveniles and the Death Penalty— Nations

Juveniles and the Death Penalty— Nations

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator November 2000

From the Juveniles and the Administrator Penalty The appropriateness of the death penalty for juveniles is the subject of intense debate despite Supreme Lynn Cothern Court decisions upholding its use. Although nearly half the States A primary purpose of the juvenile justice system is to hold juvenile allow those who commit capital offenders accountable for delinquent acts while providing treatment, as 16- and 17-year-olds to rehabilitative services, and programs designed to prevent future involve- be sentenced to death, some ques- ment in -violating behavior. Established in 1899 in Chicago, IL, in tion whether this is compatible with response to the harsh treatment children received in the the principles on which our juvenile system, the first juvenile court recognized the developmental differences justice system was established. between children and and espoused a rehabilitative ideal. However, since the passage of revised death penalty statutes in the last quarter of This Bulletin examines the history the 20th century, and during recent periods of increased violent , a of capital and decisions related to its use shift in the juvenile justice system toward stronger policies and punish- with juveniles. It also includes pro- ments has occurred.This shift includes the waiver or transfer of more files of those sentenced to death for juvenile offenders to criminal court than in the past. Increasing numbers crimes committed as juveniles and of capital offenders, including youth who committed capital offenses prior notes the international movement to their 18th birthdays, are now subject to “absolute” sentences, including toward abolishing this sanction. the death penalty and life in without .

I hope that this Bulletin enhances Currently, 38 States authorize the death penalty; 23 of these permit the our understanding of the issues execution of offenders who committed capital offenses prior to their involved in applying the death penal- 18th birthdays.1 However, the governing application of the death ty to juveniles so that we may focus penalty in those 23 States vary, and the variation is not necessarily tied to our energy and resources on rates of juvenile crime. Since 1973, when the death penalty was reinstat- effective and humane responses ed, 17 men have been executed for crimes they committed as juveniles to juvenile crime and . (see table 1), and 74 people in the currently sit on death 2 John J.Wilson row for crimes they committed as juveniles (Streib, 2000). Acting Administrator Debate about the use of the death penalty for juveniles has grown more intense in light of calls for the harsher punishment of serious and violent juvenile offenders, changing Table 1. Executions of Juvenile Offenders, perceptions of public safety, and January 1, 1973, through June 30, 2000 international challenges to the

death penalty’s legality. Proponents Date of Place of Age at Age at see its use as a deterrent against Name Execution Execution Race Crime Execution similar crimes, an appropriate sanc- Charles Rumbaugh 9/11/1985 Texas White 17 28 tion for the commission of certain J.Terry Roach 1/10/1986 S. Carolina White 17 25 serious crimes, and a way to main- Jay Pinkerton 5/15/1986 Texas White 17 24 tain public safety. Opponents Dalton Prejean 5/18/1990 Louisiana Black 17 30 believe it fails as a deterrent and is Johnny Garrett 2/11/1992 Texas White 17 28 inherently cruel and point to the Curtis Harris 7/1/1993 Texas Black 17 31 risk of wrongful .The Frederick Lashley 7/28/1993 Missouri Black 17 29 constitutionality of the juvenile 8/24/1993 Texas Latino 17 26 death penalty has been the subject Chris Burger 12/7/1993 White 17 33 of intense national debate in the Joseph John Cannon 4/22/1998 Texas White 17 38 last decade. Several Supreme Court Robert A. Carter 5/18/1998 Texas Black 17 34 decisions and high-profile cases Dwayne A.Wright 10/14/1998 Black 17 26 have led to increased public inter- Sean R. Sellars 2/4/1999 Oklahoma White 16 29 est and closer examination of the Christopher Thomas 1/10/2000 Virginia White 17 26 issues by academics, legislators, and Steve E. Roach 1/19/2000 Virginia White 17 23 policymakers. Glen C. McGinnis 1/25/2000 Texas Black 17 27 Gary L. Graham 6/22/2000 Texas Black 17 36 This Bulletin examines the status of capital punishment in the sen- Source: Streib, 2000. tencing of individuals who commit crimes as juveniles.3 It examines the history of the death penalty, 5–4 decision that the death penalty, contribution to acceptable goals including the juvenile death penal- as imposed under existing law, con- of punishment. ty; provides a profile of those cur- stituted cruel and unusual punish- rently on ; notes - ment in violation of the 8th and In Furman, the Supreme Court by-State differences in sentencing 14th amendments of the U.S. Con- ruled that the death penalty was options; and reviews the use of the stitution.To decide eighth amend- arbitrarily and capriciously applied death penalty in an international ment cases, the Supreme Court under existing law based on the context. uses an analytical framework that unlimited discretion accorded to includes three criteria. A punish- sentencing authorities in capital ment is cruel and unusual if: . As a result, more than 600 History of the Death death sentences for prisoners then Penalty ● It is a punishment originally on death row were vacated. understood by the framers of pproximately 20,000 people the to be cruel In response, States began to revise have been legally executed and unusual. their statutes in 1973 to modify the A in the United States in the discretion given to sentencing ● There is a societal consensus past 350 years (Streib, 2000). Exe- authorities, and some States again that the punishment offends cutions declined through the began sentencing offenders civilized standards of human 1950’s and 1960’s and ceased after to death. By 1975, 33 States had decency. 1967, pending definitive Supreme introduced revised death penalty Court decisions.This hiatus ended ● It is (1) grossly disproportionate statutes.These statutes went only after States altered their laws to the severity of the crime untested until Gregg v. Georgia,5 a in response to the Supreme Court or (2) makes no measurable case in which the Supreme Court decision in Furman v. Georgia,4 a found, in a 7–2 decision, that the

2 Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention death penalty did not per se violate ver discretion of juvenile courts— based on the defendant’s age the eighth amendment.The Gregg in 1966. Initially, juvenile courts had (Eddings was 16 at the time he decision allowed States to establish enjoyed broad discretion in decid- murdered a highway patrol officer). the death penalty under guidelines ing when to waive cases to crimi- Without ruling on the constitu- that eliminated the arbitrariness nal court. However, waiver de- tionality of the juvenile death of sentencing in capital cases.The cisions were not consistent across penalty, the Court vacated the following safeguards were developed States, and legislatures began to juvenile’s death on the to make sentencing more equitable: reform the process by standardiz- grounds that the court had ing judicial decisionmaking. Kent failed to consider additional miti- ● In death penalty cases, the held that juveniles were entitled to gating circumstances. Eddings was determination of or inno- a hearing, representation by coun- important, however, because the cence must be decided sep- sel, access to information upon Court held that the chronological arately from hearings in which which the waiver decision was age of a minor is a relevant mitigat- sentences of life based, and a statement of reasons ing factor that must be considered or death are decided. justifying the waiver decision. The at sentencing. Justice Powell, in ● The court must consider aggra- court also laid out a number of writing for the majority, stated: vating and mitigating circum- factors that the juvenile court [Y]outh is more than a chrono- stances in relation to both the must consider in making the logical fact. It is a time of life crime and the offender. waiver decision (Evans, 1992), including: when a person may be the ● The death sentence must be most susceptible to influence subject to review by the highest ● The seriousness and type of and psychological damage. Our State court of appeals to ensure offense and the manner in history is replete with laws and that the penalty is in proportion which it was committed. judicial recognition that minors, to the gravity of the offense and especially in their earlier years, ● The sophistication and is imposed even-handedly under generally are less mature and of the juvenile as determined by State law. responsible than adults.8 consideration of his or her homelife, environmental situation, By 1995, 38 States and the Federal The Supreme Court rejected five emotional attitude, and pattern Government had enacted statutes requests between 1983 and 1986 of living. authorizing the death penalty for to consider the constitutionality of certain forms of . ● The juvenile’s record and history. imposing the death penalty upon a juvenile (Jackson, 1996). It was not ● The prospects for protecting until 1987, in Thompson v. Okla- History of the Juvenile the public and rehabilitating the homa,9 that the Supreme Court juvenile. Death Penalty agreed to consider this specific homas Graunger, the first Juveniles were thus guaranteed cer- issue. The 5–3 decision vacated the juvenile known to be exe- tain rights, but they still potentially defendant’s death sentence (at the T cuted in America, was tried faced the same , includ- age of 15,Thompson had partici- and found guilty of bestiality in ing capital punishment, as adults in pated in the murder of his former 1642 in , MA the criminal justice system. brother-in-law). However, only four (Hale, 1997). Since that execution, justices agreed that the execution 361 individuals have been executed In the 1980’s, the Supreme Court of a 15-year-old would be cruel for crimes committed when they was repeatedly asked to rule on and unusual punishment under all were juveniles (Streib, 2000). whether the execution of a juve- circumstances (per se). Applying nile offender was permissible the standard eighth amendment The Supreme Court decided its under the Constitution. Eddings v. analysis, Justices Stevens, Brennan, first juvenile case—Kent v. United Oklahoma7 was the first case the Marshall, and Blackmun opined that States,6 in which it limited the wai- Supreme Court agreed to hear the execution would constitute

November 2000 3 cruel and unusual punishment ecutors’ views; and public, profes- In the 1990’s, however, the annual because it was inconsistent with sional, and international opinions. rate returned to a consistent 2–3 standards of decency and failed to The Court based its determination percent of all sentences, despite contribute to the two social goals of evolving standards of decency the dramatic increase in juvenile of the death penalty—retribution on legislative authorization of the arrests for murder that occurred and . Justice O’Connor punishment.The dissenting between 1985 and 1995. concurred, but pointed out that argued that the record of State Oklahoma’s death penalty statute and Federal legislation protecting Of the 196 juvenile death sen- set no minimum age at which the juveniles because of their inherent tences imposed since 1973, 74 (or death penalty could be imposed. immaturity was not relevant in 38 percent) remain in force and Sentencing a 15-year-old under constituting a national consensus. 105 (54 percent) have been this type of statute violated the The justices also found that public reversed. Of the 17 executions standard for special care and delib- opinion polls and professional that have occurred since 1973, 4 eration required in capital cases. associations were an “uncertain took place this year. Many juveniles The outcome of the decision was foundation” on which to base con- are well into adulthood by the that a State’s execution of a juve- stitutional law. In the end, the time they face execution.The nile who had committed a capital Court found that capital punish- length of time on death row has offense prior to age 16 violated ment of juveniles ages 16 or 17 ranged from 6 to 20 years (Streib, Thompson unless the State had a did not offend societal standards 2000). minimum age limit in its death of decency. penalty statute (Jackson, 1996). As of June 2000, 74 adults, ranging in age from 18 to 41 years old, The next year, in Stanford v. Profile of Youth remain on death row for crimes Kentucky10 and Wilkins v. Missouri,11 Affected committed as juveniles: the Supreme Court expressly held, ince the series of Supreme ● in a 5–4 decision, that the eighth All 74 offenders are male. Court decisions upholding amendment does not prohibit the ● the use of the death penalty Seventy-three percent commit- death penalty for crimes commit- S for juveniles, juvenile offenders have ted their crimes at age 17. ted at age 16 or 17. In both cases, received the sentence of death fair- ● Sixty-three percent are the Supreme Court upheld the ly consistently, at least during the minorities. death penalty sentence.While the past 20 years. Since 1973, 196 juve- Thompson plurality used the three- ● They are on death row in 16 nile death sentences have been part analysis (see page 2) to deter- different States. imposed.This accounts for less than mine if sentencing a juvenile off- 3 percent of the almost 6,900 total ● They have been on death row ender to the death penalty U.S. death sentences. Approximately for periods ranging from a few constituted cruel and unusual two-thirds of these have been months to more than 21 years. punishment, the Stanford plurality imposed on 17-year-olds and nearly did not.The Stanford plurality one-third on 15- and 16-year-olds Of their victims, 80 percent were rejected the third part of the test, (see table 2). adults, 64 percent were white, and namely, that the punishment is dis- 53 percent were female.Texas, proportionate to the severity of The rate of juvenile death sentenc- with 24 offenders on death row the crime and makes no measura- ing was initially somewhat erratic, who committed their crimes as ble contribution to the deterrence fluctuating in the years following juveniles, holds 34 percent of the of crime. Furman v. Georgia (1972), but be- national total of such offenders came more consistent in the mid- (Streib, 2000). In Stanford, the Court considered 1980’s. The rate dropped some- the evolving standards of decency what in the late 1980’s, possibly Little information exists to charac- in society as reflected in historical, because of cases pending before terize juvenile capital offenders judicial, and legislative precedents; the Supreme Court (Streib, 2000). beyond bare demographics. current legislation; ’ and pros-

4 Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention sentenced to the death penalty. Table 2. Death Sentences Imposed for Crimes In the mid-1980’s, Lewis and Committed as Juveniles, 1973–2000 colleagues (1988) conducted diag- Juvenile Death nostic evaluations of 14 (40 per- Sentences Percentage of Juvenile cent) of the 37 juvenile offenders Total Death (Age at Crime) Sentences as Portion on death row in the United States.12 Year Sentences* 15 16 17 Total of Total Sentences Through these comprehensive 1973 42 0 0 0 0 0.0% assessments, Lewis and colleagues 1974 149 1 0 2 3 2.0 found that all 14 had sustained 1975 298 1 5 4 10 3.4 head injuries as children. Nine had 1976 233 0 0 3 3 1.3 major neuropsychological dis- 1977 137 1 3 8 12 8.8 orders, 7 had had psychotic disor- 1978 187 0 1 6 7 3.7 ders since early childhood, and 7 1979 152 0 1 3 4 2.6 had serious psychiatric distur- 1980 174 2 0 3 5 2.9 bances. Seven were psychotic at 1981 229 0 2 6 8 3.5 the time of evaluation or had been 1982 268 0 1 13 14 5.2 diagnosed in early childhood. Only 1983 254 0 4 3 7 2.8 two had IQ scores above 90 (100 1984 283 3 0 3 6 2.1 is considered average). Only three 1985 268 1 1 4 6 2.2 had average reading abilities, and 1986 299 1 3 5 9 3.0 another three had learned to read 1987 289 1 0 1 2 0.7 on death row. Twelve reported 1988 291 0 0 5 5 1.7 having been brutally abused physi- 1989 263 0 0 1 1 0.4 cally, sexually, or both, and five 1990 252 1 3 4 8 3.2 reported having been sodomized 1991 264 1 0 4 5 1.9 by relatives. 1992 289 0 1 5 6 2.1 1993 291 0 1 5 6 2.1 Many of these factors, however, 1994 321 0 4 13 17 5.3 had not been placed in at 1995 322 0 2 9 11 3.4 the time of trial or sentencing and 1996 317 0 4 6 10 3.2 had not been used to establish 1997 274 0 4 4 8 2.9 mitigating circumstances: 1998 285 0 4 7 11 3.9 1999 300† 0 3 6 9 3.0 The time and expertise re- 2000 150† 0 0 3 3 2.0 quired to document the nec- Total 6,881† 13 47 136 196 2.8 essary clinical information

Note: Adapted from Streib, 2000. were not available. Further- * Data for this column were taken from Snell, 1999. more, the attorneys’ alliances † Estimates as of June 2000. were often divided between the juveniles and their families. [O]n several occasions, attor- Although the 1976 Gregg decision family issues, and mental capacity. neys who chose to make use established that the court must Thus, a complete profile of capital of our evaluations requested consider mitigating circumstances, offenders is difficult to obtain, that we conceal or minimize capital offenders are often repre- because detailed information parental physical and sexual sented by public defenders or about them is seldom available. abuse to spare the family.... other appointed counsel who often Brain damage, paranoid do not have the time or resources The few researchers who have ideation, physical abuse, and to adequately investigate mitigating examined this information have sexual abuse, all relevant to factors such as psychiatric history, added to the profile of juveniles issues of mitigation, were

November 2000 5 either overlooked or deliber- 5 descriptive categories to 91 (see table 3). Since 1973, Alabama, ately concealed (Lewis et al., juveniles who had been sentenced , and Texas have used the 1988:588). to death between 1973 and 1991. penalty more than other jurisdic- The categories were based on tions. Of the juveniles sentenced In most cases, Lewis and colleagues mitigating circumstances that had to the death penalty, all 21 His- found that the inmates and their been established by the evidence panic offenders were sentenced families did not want to acknowl- and were in addition to “youth”— in Arizona, Florida, , and edge past abuse or mental illness. a established in Texas.Ten of the eleven cases in Only 5 of the 14 inmates under- Eddings v. Oklahoma. Robinson Louisiana involved African Ameri- went any pretrial psychiatric evalua- found that: can offenders, and all Oklahoma tion, and the research team found offenders were white. There were these evaluations to be both in- ● Almost half of those sentenced four cases of female offenders, one complete and inaccurate. In many had troubled family histories each in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, instances, the defendants were rep- and social backgrounds and and Mississippi. The 13 youngest resented by public defenders or problems such as physical offenders, who were age 15 at the court-appointed attorneys who abuse, unstable childhood time of their crimes, came from were insufficiently prepared for environments, and illiteracy. 10 different States (Streib, 2000). trial.13 ● Twenty-nine suffered psycho- The States have responded differ- logical disturbances (e.g., pro- found simi- ently to the requirement imposed found depression, paranoia, lar results. In 9 of 23 juvenile by Thompson (see pages 3–4).The self-mutilation). cases it examined, lawyers Supreme Court of Louisiana held handling later appeals identified ● Just under one-third exhibited that Thompson prevents 15-year- mitigating evidence that had not mental disability evidenced by old offenders from being executed been presented at the trial or low or borderline IQ scores. in that State (State v. Stone15 and sentencing hearing (Amnesty 16 ● More than half were indigent. Dugar v. State ).The same is true International, 1991). A case in for Alabama (Flowers v. State17), ● point is Dwayne Allan Wright, Eighteen were involved in inten- Florida (Allen v. State18), and Indiana who was executed October 14, sive before the (Cooper v. State19).The Florida 1998, in Virginia’s Greensville crime. Supreme Court ruled that the Correctional Center for a crime Florida Constitution also prohibits 14 Juveniles sentenced to death share he committed at age 17. The the death penalty for 16-year-olds varying combinations of these miti- court nominated a clinical (Brennan v. State20) (Streib, 2000). psychologist, whom the defense gating circumstances, in addition to accepted, only to find out later their youthful age. In 61 of the 91 Currently, 38 States and the Federal that the psychologist was the cases (67 percent), one or more Government have statutes authoriz- author of a study that concluded factors in addition to “youth” was ing the death penalty for certain that mental illness and environ- present. forms of murder. In 16 of those ment are not mitigating factors in jurisdictions (40 percent), offenders the commission of crimes and State-by-State must at a minimum be age 18 at the that “criminals act because they time of the crime to be eligible for develop an ability to ‘get away Differences in that punishment (see table 4). Five with’ their crimes and ‘live rather Sentencing Options jurisdictions (13 percent) have a well’ as a result” (Amnesty Inter- wenty-two States—more minimum age of 17. Nineteen juris- national, 1998:30). than half of the 38 jurisdic- dictions (47 percent) use age 16 as tions authorizing the death the minimum age. In 7 of these The research of Robinson and T penalty—have imposed the death jurisdictions, age 16 is expressed in Stephens (1992) corroborated penalty on offenders who commit- the statute; in the other 12, age 16 that of Lewis and colleagues. ted capital offenses before age 18 has been established by court ruling Robinson and Stephens applied (American Bar Association, 2000).

6 Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Table 3. State-by-State Breakdown of Juvenile Death Sentences, 1973–2000

Total Total Race of Offender Sex of Offender Age at Crime Juvenile Juvenile Rank State Black Latino White M F 15 16 17 Sentences Offenders 1 TX 23 16 10 49 0 0 0 49 49 48 2 FL 8 1 21 30 0 3 9 18 30 25 3 AL 11 0 10 20 1 1 9 11 21 20 4 MS 6 0 6 11 1 0 5 7 12 11 5LA10011102541111 6GA406 91109107 7NC502 701067 6 7OK007 701337 6 7SC304 700347 7 8 OH* 5 0 1 6 0 0 1 5 6 6 8PA501 601236 6 9AZ032 500225 5 9VA302 500235 5 10 MO 2 0 2 4 0 0 2 2 4 4 11 IN 2 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 3 3 11 KY 1 0 2 3 0 1 0 2 3 3 11 MD* 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 3 2 12 AR 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 12 NV 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 13 NE* 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 13 NJ* 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 13 WA* 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 Total 95 21 80 192 4 13 47 135 196 182

Note: Adapted from Streib, 2000. * State statute no longer allows the death penalty for offenders who commit capital offenses before age 18 (American Bar Association, 2000).

Significant State legislative activity Maryland, Missouri, Montana, North legislation that barred the imposi- concerning the death penalty Carolina, and Pennsylvania saw tion of the death penalty on occurred in 1999.21 Both Nebraska the introduction—but not the offenders who were under age 18 and Illinois mandated a compre- passage—of legislation calling for at the time they committed capital hensive evaluation of the death moratoriums on the death penalty offenses. Similar bills were intro- penalty. Although the Governor or authorizing studies of its use. In duced in Indiana, Pennsylvania, of Nebraska vetoed a proposed 1999, 12 of the 38 States that cur- South Carolina, South Dakota, and moratorium on executions, legisla- rently have the death penalty saw Texas.Bills that called for the tion was enacted that called for a the introduction of bills to abolish expansion of the death penalty to comprehensive study to determine it—8 more States than in the previ- juvenile offenders ages 16 and 17 whether the death penalty is ous year (American Bar Associ- were rejected in several States, applied fairly. The Governor of ation, 2000). including (American Bar Illinois ordered an evaluation after Association, 2000). 13 death row inmates in the past In 1999, many States also were few years were found not guilty involved in reassessing their use of when their cases were reexamined. the death penalty for juveniles. Legislatures in Connecticut, Montana’s legislature approved

November 2000 7 the period 1985–95. However, the Table 4. Status of the Death Penalty, by American extent of the international use of Jurisdiction the death penalty for juveniles is

Death Penalty, Death Penalty, largely unknown. If age at the time Minimum Age 18 Death Penalty, Minimum Age 16 of crime had been used, rather (Total = 15 States Minimum Age 17 (Total = 18 States than age at execution, the numbers and Federal (civilian)) (Total = 5 States) and Federal (military)) would be greater. Undocumented California* Florida† Alabama* cases would also increase the Colorado* Georgia* Arizona‡ global number. Connecticut* * Arkansas‡ Illinois* N. Carolina* Delaware‡ The United States has not adopted Kansas* Texas* ‡ several international bans on the Maryland* Indiana* juvenile death penalty. Introduced Montana* * on March 23, 1976, the United Nebraska* Louisiana‡ Nations’ (U.N.’s) International New Jersey* Mississippi‡ Covenant on Civil and Political New Mexico* Missouri* Rights (ICCPR) states that the New * Nevada* “sentence of death shall not be Ohio* Oklahoma‡ imposed for crimes committed by Oregon* Pennsylvania‡ persons below eighteen years of Tennessee* S. Carolina‡ age” (article 6(5)).The United Washington* S. Dakota‡ States signed the ICCPR in Federal* (civilian) Utah‡ October 1977, although the Virginia‡ Supreme Court had recently, in Wyoming* Gregg v. Georgia, permitted States Federal* (military) to resume use of the death penal-

Sources: Streib, 2000. Data on States with a minimum age of 16 were taken from American Bar ty. At the time of signing, the Association, 2000. Federal Government expressly * Express minimum age in statute. † Minimum age required by Florida Constitution per Florida Supreme Court in Brennan v. State, reserved the right to impose the 754 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1999). death penalty for crimes commit- ‡ Minimum age required by the Constitution per the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988). ted while under age 18. Eleven countries objected to the United States’ reservation and, in 1995, without possibil- International the U.N.’s Com- ity of release for crimes commit- mittee, which monitors compliance Context ted while a juvenile, is a human with the ICCPR, asked the United ith increasing globaliza- rights issue (see pages 10–12 for States to withdraw the reservation tion and a developing a discussion of life imprisonment (Amnesty International, 1998). In world economy, it is without possibility of release W 1998, the United States was again difficult not to look beyond the (parole)). According to Amnesty asked to withdraw its reservation, borders of the United States to International, since the adoption this time by the U.N. Special Rap- the practices of other nations. In of the Declaration of Human porteur on extrajudicial, summary, deciding Stanford, for example, the Rights 50 years ago, more than or arbitrary executions, but the Supreme Court considered the half of the world’s countries have United States declined to do so. international context in determin- abolished the use of the death ing evolving standards of decency. penalty (Amnesty International, Article 37(a) of the U.N. Conven- 1998). Table 5 lists the document- tion on the Rights of the Child International law has expressly ed executions of offenders in (CRC) states that “neither capital determined that the death penalty, other countries who were under punishment nor life imprisonment specifically, the death penalty and age 18 at the time of execution for without possibility of release shall

8 Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention small population. With greater Table 5. Documented Executions of Juvenile attention paid to assessing juvenile Offenders in Foreign Countries, 1985–1995 capital offenders, correctional facili-

Age at Date of ties could more effectively provide Country Name of Offender Execution Execution programs that address offenders’ Mohammed Sleim 17 February 27, 1986 needs. An additional difficulty is the Kazem Shirafkan 17 1990 difference in how the courts han- Three unnamed males 16, 17, 17 September 29, 1992 dle juvenile capital offenders. Some Five Kurdish males 15–17 November–December 1987 young offenders are kept in juvenile Eight Kurdish males 14–17 December 30–31, 1987 court, while others are transferred Matthew Anu 18 February 26, 1989 to criminal court.These offenders One male 17 November 15, 1992 face a variety of sentencing pat- Sadeq Mal-Allah 17 September 2, 1992 terns, depending primarily on State Nasser Munir Nasser 13 July 21, 1993 law, the local and national political al’Kirbi climate, and the skills of defense Source: Streib, 1999. counsel.

A review of individual juvenile and adult death penalty cases often be imposed for offences commit- fenders. One effective program is reveals years of trauma and depri- ted by persons below eighteen Texas’ Capital Offender Program, vation prior to the commission of years of age.”22 , which has which originated in 1988 at the capital offenses. Public investment long upheld the death penalty and Giddings State Home and School. in early intervention programs for historically executed more people This structured, intensive, 16-week children at risk of abuse, academic annually than any country in the program helps small groups of support for low-functioning stu- world, changed its laws in 1997 to juvenile capital offenders gain dents, and positive involvement conform to article 37(a) of the access to their emotions through with caring adults will go a long CRC. President Clinton signed the role-playing. The goal of this empa- way toward eliminating violent CRC in 1995 with a reservation to thy training program is to address crimes, including capital offenses article 37(a).The Senate has not offenders’ emotional detachment and the resulting sentences that yet ratified the CRC. Of 154 U.N. and inability to accept responsibili- drain the Nation’s resources— members, the United States and ty for their crimes. Each parti- both human and financial. are the only 2 countries cipant is required to reenact the that have not yet ratified the CRC. crime committed, first as the per- In recent years, various innovative petrator and then as the victim, and effective interventions have Sentencing and in addition to other scenes from been developed to prevent juve- their lives (Matthews, 1995). nile delinquency. Minimizing risk Program Options A qualitative evaluation found factors and maximizing protective lthough researchers have the program to be effective.The factors throughout the develop- begun to analyze and evalu- youth unanimously believed that mental cycle from birth through A ate the effects of program- the program gave them insight into can give all youth a ming on serious, violent, and their own and others’ feelings. better chance to lead productive, chronic juvenile offenders, few pro- A quantitative study would yield crime-free lives. Early intervention grams target juvenile capital offen- more information about the long- programs and services for ju- ders per se. A literature search of term effectiveness of this program. veniles engaged in high-risk and the National Criminal Justice minor delinquent behaviors are The development of sentencing Reference Service (NCJRS) data- significantly reducing the number and program options for juvenile base reveals scant research on of juveniles penetrating the juve- capital offenders is difficult in light programs for juvenile capital of- nile and criminal justice systems. of the lack of knowledge about this Many interventions geared toward

November 2000 9 Life in Prison Without Possibility of Release The justice system’s recent shift toward stronger best how to punish recidivists, the Court held that punishment policies has been marked not only by findings of disproportionality with respect to sen- increased use of the death penalty but by increases tence length should be “exceedingly rare.”5 Three in the number of offenders—including juveniles who years later, in Solem v. Helm,6 the Court reached a committed offenses prior to their 18th birthdays— different result. Finding a sentence of life without being sentenced to life in prison without the possi- parole disproportionate, the Court in Solem square- bility of parole. ly rejected the State’s argument that analysis does not apply to terms of imprisonment. Only Washington, DC, Indiana, and Oregon ex- pressly prohibit courts from imposing life without The Court identified three objective factors for parole on offenders younger than age 16 at the time courts to consider when analyzing proportionality: of their offense (Logan, 1998). A few States effec- tively disallow a sentence of life without parole for ● The gravity of the offense and the harshness of such offenders by setting a minimum age for waiver the penalty. or establishing sentencing limitations. Several States ● Sentences imposed on other criminals (for fail to indicate whether life without parole can be more and less serious offenses) in the same imposed on those younger than age 16, and some jurisdiction. States do not use the sentence at all. ● Sentences imposed (for the same offense) in The overwhelming majority of American juris- other jurisdictions.7 dictions, however, allow life without parole for offenders younger than age 16. Some even make it Unlike Rummel, the three-part test announced in mandatory for defendants convicted of certain Solem revealed the Court’s willingness to undertake a offenses in criminal court. In Washington State, detailed analysis of the proportionality of a sentence’s offenders as young as age 8 can be sentenced to length. life.1 In Vermont, 10-year-olds can face the sentence.2 The Supreme Court’s consideration of the constitu- tionality of life without parole 8 years later (in Assessing the Constitutionality of Life Harmelin v. Michigan8) provided little clarification of in Prison Without Parole: Supreme the applicable standards. A majority of the sharply Court Standards divided Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that life without parole was an unconstitutional sentence The eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution for the offense committed. Two members of the prohibits punishment that is cruel and unusual. The majority, however, held that proportionality analysis Supreme Court has interpreted this prohibition to did not even apply outside the context of death mean that punishment must be proportional to the penalty cases. Three justices (concurring separately) crime for which it is imposed.3 disagreed with this conclusion. Applying the first Proportionality analysis in cases involving life with- prong of Solem, these justices held that life without out parole has been far less clear than in cases parole was not grossly disproportionate to the seri- involving the death penalty. Beginning in the 1980’s, ous crimes the petitioner had committed. The other the Supreme Court decided several cases focusing two factors (intrajurisdictional and interjurisdictional on the constitutionality of life sentences. In the first comparisons), they held, applied only in “the rare of these, Rummel v. Estelle,4 the Court upheld the case in which a threshold comparison of the crime constitutionality of a mandatory life sentence (with committed and the sentence imposed leads to an 9 the possibility of parole) imposed under a Texas inference of gross disproportionality.” The four dis- recidivist law. Holding that the State legislature knew senting justices agreed that the eighth amendment

10 Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention contains a proportionality requirement and found offense (e.g., motive, consequences, and extent of that it had been violated by the petitioner’s life the defendant’s involvement) and characteristics of sentence.10 the defendant (e.g., age, prior offenses, and mental capacity).18 California courts also must compare the Despite disagreement among the justices, the deci- challenged punishment with sentences imposed sion in Harmelin includes two important holdings: within and outside the State, as required by the sec- (1) the eighth amendment’s proportionality analysis ond and third prongs of the Solem test.19 Courts in applies to capital and noncapital cases, and (2) in Kansas similarly consider the nature of the offense, cases involving statutorily mandated minimum sen- the “character of the offender,” and the Solem com- tences (even life without parole), courts or other parative factors.20 sentencing authorities need not consider mitigating factors such as age (Logan, 1998). Invalidating a mandatory life sentence imposed on two 14-year-olds convicted of , the Kentucky Cases Involving Juveniles Supreme Court in Workman v. Kentucky 21 held that courts retain the power to determine whether “an Challenges of sentences of life without parole have act of the legislature violates the provisions of the met with limited success in State courts and almost Constitution.” Although the court upheld the no success in Federal court in cases involving juve- Kentucky law mandating life without parole for 11 nile offenders (Logan, 1998). Most Federal courts those convicted of rape as applied to adults, it held have adopted a restrictive view when comparing the that a “different situation prevails when punishment crime committed and the sentence imposed (the of this stringent a nature is applied to a juvenile.”22 first factor of the Solem test), focusing almost exclu- Under all the circumstances of the case, the court sively on the seriousness of the offense committed held that life without parole for two 14-year-olds without considering offender culpability and individ- “shocks the general conscience of society today 12 ual mitigating circumstances (Logan, 1998). The and is intolerable to fundamental fairness.”23 Ninth of Appeals in Harris v. Wright,13 for example, upheld a mandatory life sentence for In Naovarath v. State,24 a case involving the constitu- a 15-year-old convicted of murder, finding that tionality of a life sentence imposed on a 13-year-old “youth has no obvious bearing” on proportionality convicted of murder, the Supreme Court of Nevada analysis.14 It also held that although capital punish- undertook a similarly close examination of offender ment must be treated specially,“mandatory life characteristics. Proportionality analysis, the court in imprisonment without parole is, for young and old Naovarath held, required consideration of the con- alike, only an outlying point on the continuum of vict’s age and his likely mental state at the time of prison sentences.”15 Like any other prison sentence, the crime.25 Finding the sentence cruel and unusual, the court held,“it raises no inference of dispropor- the court held that “children are and should be tionality when imposed on a murderer.”16 Following judged by different standards from those imposed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harmelin, the Harris upon mature adults.”26 court held that a detailed analysis of proportionality was necessary only in the rare case in which “‘a Other State courts have been less willing to consider threshold comparison of the crime committed and a juvenile’s age when assessing the constitutionality the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross of life sentences. The Washington State Court of disproportionality.’”17 Appeals in State v. Massey,27 for instance, affirmed a life sentence for a 13-year-old convicted of murder, State courts have been somewhat more flexible holding that proportionality analysis should not and willing to consider individual factors affecting include consideration of the defendant’s age,“only a an offender’s culpability than Federal courts. In balance between the crime and the sentence California, for example, a court reviewing life with- imposed.” out parole must consider circumstances of the continued on next page

November 2000 11 State law in Illinois requires a mandatory life sen- his discretion’”), quoting United States v. Vasquez, 966 F.2d 254, 261 (7th Cir. 1992). tence for any defendant convicted of killing 13 93 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 1996). more than one person (even if convicted as an 14 Harris, 93 F.3d at 585. See also Rodriguez v. Peters, 63 F.3d 546, 568 ).28 The Illinois Supreme Court has not, (7th Cir. 1995) (refused to consider age of 15-year-old offender in chal- as yet, addressed the constitutionality of the lenge of life sentence’s constitutionality). 15 sentencing law as applied to juveniles convicted as Harris, 93 F.3d at 585. 16 Harris, 93 F.3d at 585. in murder trials (Hanna, 2000). 17 Harris, 93 F.3d at 583, quoting Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1005 (Kennedy, J., concurring). 18 People v. Hines, 938 P.2d 833,443 (Cal. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. Endnotes 855 (1998). 1 State v. Furman, 853 P.2d 1092,1102 (Wash. 1993). 19 People v. Thongvilay, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 738, 749 (Cal. App. 1998). 2 VT.STAT.ANN. tit. 13, § 2303 (Supp. 1997) and VT.STAT.ANN. tit. 33, § 20 State v. Scott, 947 P.2d 466,470 (Kan. Ct. App.), aff’d in part, rev’d in 5506 (1991). part. No. 75,684, 1998 WL 272730 (Kan. May 29, 1998). 3 Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 367 (1910) (“It is a precept of 21 429 S.W.2d 374, 377 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). justice that a punishment for crime should be graduated and propor- 22 tioned to the offense”). Workman, 429 S.W.2d at 377. 23 4 445 U.S. 263 (1980). Workman, 429 S.W.2d 374, 378 (Ky. 1968). 24 5 Rummel, 445 U.S. at 272. 779 P.2d 944 (Nev. 1989). 25 6 463 U.S. 277 (1983). Naovarath, 779 P.2d at 946. 26 7 Solem, 463 U.S. at 291–292. Naovarath, 779 P.2d at 946–47. See also People v. Dillon, 668 P.2d 697, 726–27 (Cal. 1983) (reversing life sentence imposed on 17-year-old, 8 501 U.S. 957 (1991). noting youth’s “unusual” immaturity). 9 Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1005 (Kennedy, J., concurring). 27 803 P.2d 340,348 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). 10 Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1013 (White, J., dissenting). 28 In all 50 States, juveniles charged with acting as accomplices to 11 Data on life without parole cases involving juveniles currently are not murder may be transferred to criminal court. Unlike Illinois, however, being collected. 34 States provide judges discretion when deciding on an appropriate sentence for such offenders. 12 See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 8 F.3d 546, 550 (7th Cir. 1993) (“‘[A] particular offense that falls within legislatively prescribed limits will not be considered disproportionate unless the sentencing judge has abused

serious and chronic juvenile of- Conclusion Endnotes fenders have had positive effects 1 These States are Alabama,Arizona, on subsequent reoffense rates.23 ndividuals who were juveniles at the time they committed a Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Graduated sanctions systems, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, capital offense continue to be designed to place sentenced I Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New juveniles—especially serious, vio- sentenced to the death penalty in Hampshire, North Carolina, lent, and chronic offenders—into the United States.Although the Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South appropriate treatment programs number of juvenile offenders Carolina, South Dakota,Texas,Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. while protecting the public safety, affected by the death penalty is small, these offenders serve as a are being implemented in jurisdic- 2 The data in this Bulletin are current tions across the country. These focal point for often highly politi- as of June 2000 and, with the excep- programs and services recognize cized debates about the constitu- tion of the sidebar on pages 10–12, are that children are malleable and tionality of the death penalty, taken from The Juvenile Death Penalty Today, a report that first appeared in that research-based interventions public safety, alternatives available to judges and juries in determin- 1984 and has been issued 57 times by are able to affect the lives of juve- Dean and Professor of Law Victor L. ing the fates of these youth, and, nile offenders positively and con- Streib at the Claude W. Pettit College structively while helping to reduce most crucial, the effectiveness of of Law at Ohio Northern University in the number of young people who the juvenile justice system in safe- Ada, OH (Streib, 2000). Streib states commit crimes that can put them guarding the rights that the reports “almost invariably under-report the number of death- on death row or subject them to of youth. sentenced juvenile offenders due to life in prison without possibility of release.

12 Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Prevention and Early Intervention Programs OJJDP is committed to interrupting the cycle of vio- age 15, the cost savings are four times the original lence through prevention and early intervention investment because of reductions in crime, welfare programs such as nurse home visitation, mentoring, expenditures, and healthcare costs and because of and family support services. taxes paid by working parents.

Prenatal and Early Childhood Nurse Youth Mentoring Home Visitation Another effective intervention is to enlist caring, OJJDP is supporting implementation of the Prenatal responsible adults to work with at-risk youth in and Early Childhood Nurse Home Visitation need of positive role models. Big Brothers/Big Program in six high-crime, urban areas. The program Sisters (BB/BS) mentoring programs, for example, sends nurses to visit low-income, first-time mothers have been matching volunteer adults with youth to during their pregnancies. The nurses help women help youth avoid the risky behaviors that compro- improve their health, making it more likely that their mise their health and safety. A 1995 study of BB/BS children will be born free of neurological problems. programs, conducted by Public/Private Ventures of Several rigorous studies indicate that the nurse Philadelphia, PA, revealed positive results. Mentored home visitation program reduces the risks for early youth reported being 46 percent less likely to begin antisocial behavior and prevents problems that lead using drugs, 27 percent less likely to begin drinking, to youth crime and delinquency, such as child abuse, and approximately 33 percent less likely to hit maternal substance abuse, and maternal criminal someone than were their nonmentored counter- involvement. Recent evidence shows that nurse parts. In addition, BB/BS programs had a positive home visitation even reduces juvenile offending. effect on mentored youth’s success at school.

Adolescents whose mothers received nurse home OJJDP’s Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) pro- visitation services more than a decade earlier were vides one-to-one mentoring for youth at risk of 60 percent less likely than adolescents whose moth- delinquency, gang involvement, educational failure, or ers had not received a nurse home visitor to have dropping out of school. Among its many objectives, run away, 55 percent less likely to have been arrest- JUMP seeks to discourage use of illegal drugs and ed, and 80 percent less likely to have been convicted firearms, involvement in violence and gangs, and of a crime. When the program focuses on low- other delinquent activity and encourage participa- income women, the public costs to fund the pro- tion in service and community activity. The JUMP gram are recovered by the time the first child national evaluation will play an important role in reaches age 4, primarily because of the reduced expanding the body of information about mentoring. number of subsequent pregnancies and related Preliminary evaluation findings reveal that both reductions in use of government welfare programs. youth and mentors view the experience as positive. By the time children from high-risk families reach

difficulty in obtaining accurate data” 3 Although 10 States classify all individ- 4 408 U.S. 238 (1972). (p. 2). However, the juvenile execution uals age 17 or older as adults and 3 data are complete, the annual juvenile other States classify all individuals age 5 428 U.S. 153 (1976). death sentencing data are almost (95 16 or older as adults for purposes of percent) complete, and the data for criminal responsibility (Snyder and 6 383 U.S. 541 (1966). juvenile offenders currently on death Sickmund, 1999), this Bulletin refers to row are fairly (90 percent) complete. all individuals under age 18 at the time 7 455 U.S. 104 (1982). The report is available online at that a criminal offense was committed www.law.onu.edu/faculty/streib/ as “juveniles.” 8 455 U.S. 104, 116. juvdeath.htm. 9 487 U.S. 815 (1988). November 2000 13 10 492 U.S. 361 (1989). 18 636 So. 2d 494 (1994). Hale, R.L. 1997. A Review of Juvenile Executions in America. 11 492 U.S. 361 (the Stanford v. Kentucky 19 540 N.E.2d 1216 (Ind. 1989). Series, vol 3. Lewiston, NY: Edwin and Wilkins v. Missouri cases were Mellen Press. consolidated). 20 754 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1999). Hanna, J. 2000. Mandatory life term for 12 These diagnostic evaluations involved 21 A report issued by the American Bar teen rejected. Chicago Tribune (June 22). psychiatric, neurological, psychological, Association in January 2000 details neuropsychological, educational, and recent legislative, judicial, and executive Jackson, S. 1996.Too young to die— electroencephalographic (EEG) exami- branch activity relating to the death juveniles and the death penalty— nations. Dr. Dorothy Lewis and penalty (American Bar Association, a better alternative to killing our colleagues conducted psychiatric inter- 2000). children: Youth empowerment. New views with the offenders; obtained England Journal on Criminal and Civil detailed neurological histories; corrob- 22 G.A. Res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. Confinement 22(2):391–437. orated those histories when possible GAOR, Supp. No. 49, at 167, U.N. Doc. through physical examinations, record A/44/49 (1989). Lewis, D.O., Pincus, J.H., Bard, B., reviews, and specialized tests such as Richardson, E., Prichep, L.S., Feldman, M., the EEG; performed neurological and 23 Lipsey and Wilson (1998:338) report and Yeager, L. 1988. Neuropsychiatric, mental status examinations; deter- that in a meta-analysis of 200 studies psychoeducational, and family charac- mined whether offenders had been of intervention with serious offenders, teristics of 14 juveniles condemned to physically and/or sexually abused as the best programs “were capable of death in the United States. American youth through lengthy interviews; reducing rates by as much Journal of 145(5):585–589. performed neurometric quantitative as 40%” and that the “average” inter- EEG’s; and conducted neuropsychol- vention reduced recidivism rates by Liebman, J.S., Fagan, J., and West,V. 2000. ogical and educational testing using approximately 12 percent. See also A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital tests such as the WAIS, Bender-Gestalt Office of Juvenile Justice and Cases 1973–1995. New York,NY: test, Rorschach Test,Halstead-Reitan Delinquency Prevention, 1998. Columbia Law School. Battery of Neuropsychological Tests, and Woodcock-Johnson Psycho- Lipsey, M.W., and Wilson, D.B. 1998. Educational Battery. References Effective intervention for serious juve- American Bar Association. 2000. A nile offenders:A synthesis of research. 13 For more information on inadequate Gathering Momentum: Continuing In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: legal representation, see A Broken Impacts of the American Bar Association Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, System: Error Rates in Capital Cases Call for a Moratorium on Executions. edited by R. Loeber and D.P.Farrington. 1973–1995, which states that the Washington, DC: American Bar Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, most common errors found in capital Association. Inc., pp. 313–345. cases are “(1) egregiously incompetent defense lawyering (accounting for 37% Amnesty International. 1991. USA: The Logan,W.A. 1998. Proportionality and of the state post-conviction reversals) Death Penalty and Juvenile Offenders. punishment: Imposing life without and (2) prosecutorial suppression of New York,NY: Amnesty International parole on juveniles. Wake Forest Law evidence that the defendant is USA Publications. Review 33:681–725. innocent or does not deserve the death penalty (accounting for another Amnesty International. 1998. On the Matthews, S. 1995. Juvenile capital 16–19 percent, when all forms of law Wrong Side of History: Children and offenders on empathy. Reclaiming enforcement misconduct are consid- the Death Penalty in the USA. New Children and Youth (Summer):10–12. ered” (Liebman, Fagan, and West, York,NY: Amnesty International USA 2000:5). Publications. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1998. Serious 14 See Wright v. Angelone, No. 97–32 Bassham, G. 1991. Rethinking the and Violent Juvenile Offenders. Bulletin. (4th Cir. July 16, 1998). emerging jurisprudence of juvenile Washington, DC: U.S. Department of death. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 15 535 So. 2d 362 (La. 1988). and Public Policy 5(2):467–501. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 16 615 So. 2d 1333 (La. 1993). Evans, K.L. 1992.Trying juveniles as adults: Is the short-term gain of retri- Robinson, D.A., and Stephens, O.H. 17 586 So. 2d 978 (Ala. Ct. Crim. Ap. bution outweighed by the long-term 1992. Patterns of mitigating factors in 1991). effects on society? Mississippi Law juvenile death penalty cases. Criminal Journal 62(1):95–131. Law Bulletin 28(3):246–275.

14 Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coordinating Council Members As designated by legislation, the Coordinating Council’s primary functions are to coordinate all Federal juvenile delinquency prevention programs, all Federal programs and activities that detain or care for unaccompanied juveniles, and all Federal programs relating to missing and exploited children.The Council comprises nine statutory members and nine practitioner members representing disciplines that focus on youth. Statutory Members The Honorable Barry R. McCaffrey John A. Calhoun The Honorable Janet Reno, Director Executive Director Chairperson Office of National Drug Control Policy National Crime Prevention Council Attorney General Doris Meissner Larry EchoHawk U.S. Department of Justice Commissioner Professor John J.Wilson,Vice Chair U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Brigham Young University Law School Service Acting Administrator The Honorable Adele L. Grubbs Office of Juvenile Justice and Harris Wofford Judge Delinquency Prevention Chief Executive Officer Juvenile Court of Cobb County, Georgia Corporation for National and The Honorable Donna E. Shalala, Ph.D. The Honorable Gordon A. Martin, Jr. Community Service Secretary Associate Justice U.S. Department of Health and Human Practitioner Members Massachusetts Trial Court Services Robert A. Babbage, Jr. The Honorable Michael W. McPhail Senior Managing Partner The Honorable Alexis M. Herman Judge InterSouth, Inc. Secretary Juvenile Court of Forrest County, U.S. Department of Labor Larry K. Brendtro, Ph.D. Mississippi President The Honorable Richard W. Riley Charles Sims Reclaiming Youth Secretary Chief of Police U.S. Department of Education The Honorable William R. Byars, Jr. Mississippi Police Department, The Honorable Andrew Cuomo Judge Hattiesburg Secretary Family Court of Kershaw County, U.S. Department of Housing and South Carolina Urban Development

Snell,T.L. 1999. Capital Punishment 1998. Additional Resources Sanborn, J.B. 1996. Policies regarding Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the prosecution of juvenile murderers: Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Amnesty International. 1998. Betraying Which system and who should decide? Bureau of Justice Statistics. the Young: Human Rights Violations Against Law and Policy 19(1 and 2):151–178. Children in the U.S. Justice System. New Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999. York,NY:Amnesty International USA Juvenile Offenders and Victims:1999 Publications. Points of view or opinions expressed in National Report. Report. Washington, DC: this document are those of the authors U.S. Department of Justice, Office of DeMuro, P.1999. Consider the and do not necessarily represent the Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Alternatives: Planning and Implementing official position or policies of OJJDP or Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Detention Alternatives. Pathways to the U.S. Department of Justice. Juvenile Detention Reform Series, vol. Streib,V.L. 1999. Juvenile Death Penalty 4. Baltimore, MD:The Annie E. Casey Today: Death Sentences and Executions for Foundation. Juvenile Crimes, January 1973–June 1999. Ada, OH: Ohio Northern University McCuen, G.E., ed. 1997. Death Penalty Claude W. Pettit College of Law. and the Disadvantaged. Hudson,WI: Gary E. McCuen Publications. Streib,V.L. 2000. The Juvenile Death Penalty Today: Death Sentences and Parent, D., Dunworth,T., McDonald, D., Executions for Juvenile Crimes, January 1, and Rhodes,W. 1997. Key legislative 1973–June 30, 2000. Ada, OH: Ohio issues in criminal justice:Transferring Northern University Claude W. Pettit serious juvenile offenders to adult College of Law. courts. Alternatives to Incarceration 3(4):28–30.

November 2000 15 U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention DOJ/OJJDP PERMIT NO. G–91

Washington, DC 20531 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

NCJ 184748 Coordinating Council Bulletin

Acknowledgments Lynn Cothern, Ph.D., is Senior Writer/Editor for the Juvenile Justice Resource Center (JJRC) in Rockville, MD. Lucy Hudson, Project Manager for JJRC, and Ellen McLaughlin,Writer/Editor for the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC) in Rockville, MD, revised and updated the Bulletin using source material provided by the author. Nancy Walsh, Senior Writer/Editor for JJC, wrote the sidebar on pages 10–12.

Top View