Summary of Argument

A. At ages 16 and 17, adolescents, as a group, are not yet mature in ways that affect their decision-making. Behavioral studies show that late adolescents are less likely to consider alternative courses of action, understand the perspective of others, and restrain impulses. Delin- quent, even criminal, behavior is characteristic of many adolescents, often peaking around age 18. Heightened risk-taking is also common. During the same period, the brain has not reached adult maturity, particularly in the frontal lobes, which control executive functions of the brain related to decision-making.

Adolescent risk-taking often represents a tentative expression of adolescent identity and not an enduring mark of behavior arising from a fully formed personality. Most delinquent adolescents do not engage in violent illegal conduct through adulthood.

The unformed nature of adolescent character makes execution of 16- and 17-year-olds fall short of the purposes this Court has articulated for capital punishment. Developmentally immature decision-making, paralleled by immature neurological development, diminishes an adolescent’s blameworthiness. With regard to deterrence, adolescents often lack an adult ability to control impulses and anticipate the consequences of their actions. Studies call into question the effect on juvenile recidivism of harsher criminal sanctions.

B. The mitigating effect of adolescence cannot be reliably assessed in individualized capital sentencing. Adolescents are “moving targets” for assessment of charac- ter and future dangerousness, two important considera- tions in the penalty phase of capital trials. As one example, psychologists have been unable to identify chronic psychopathy, also known as sociopathy, among adolescents. Assessments of such severe antisocial behav- iors during adolescence have yet to be shown to remain stable as individuals grow into adulthood. Consequently, attempts to predict at capital sentencing an adolescent offender’s character formation and dangerousness in adulthood are inherently prone to error and create an obvious risk of wrongful execution.

The transitory nature of adolescence also means that an adolescent defendant is much more likely to change in relevant respects between the time of the offense and the time of assessment by courts and experts. At sentencing, an offender may behave and look more like an adult than he or she did at the time the crime was committed. Im- pressions of the maturity and responsibility of adolescent offenders may also be impermissibly influenced by uncon- scious racism.

C. Immaturity of judgment, which is generally characteristic of adolescent development, will affect a defendant’s participation in earlier stages of the criminal process. A recent study found adolescents overrepresented among defendants who had falsely confessed to crimes. Other research that examined psychosocial influences on legal decisions found that developmental immaturity may adversely affect an adolescent’s decisions, attitudes, and behavior in the role of defendant. Individualized capital sentencing cannot correct for the heightened risk of error produced by less mature adolescent decision-making at earlier stages of the criminal process.

Summary of Argument

The argument presented contends that executing individuals between the ages of 16 and 17 is inappropriate due to their developmental immaturity, both in terms of decision-making abilities and neurological development. This argument focuses on three primary areas:

1. Developmental Immaturity: Adolescents are less likely than adults to consider alternative actions, understand the perspectives of others, and control impulses. This immaturity is reflected in a propensity for risk-taking behavior and delinquent actions, often peaking around age 18. Moreover, the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for executive functions like decision-making, has not yet reached full maturity in adolescents. This lack of mature cognitive function undermines the traditional justifications for capital punishment, namely accountability and deterrence.

2. Unreliability of Assessing Mitigation: Assessing mitigating factors during capital sentencing is inherently unreliable for adolescents, as they are "moving targets" in terms of character development and future dangerousness. Predicting an adolescent's future behavior based on current assessments carries a significant risk of error, as their personalities and behaviors are still in flux. This unreliability increases the risk of wrongful execution.

3. Immature Participation in the Criminal Process: The immaturity of judgment inherent in adolescent development can negatively impact an individual's participation in the criminal justice system. Research shows that adolescents are overrepresented in cases of false confessions. Furthermore, their developmental immaturity can compromise their decision-making, attitudes, and behavior during legal proceedings, further increasing the risk of error and injustice.

Summary of Argument

This argument focuses on the developmental immaturity of adolescents and the implications for capital punishment. The author argues that adolescents, particularly those aged 16-17, are not yet fully developed in terms of decision-making abilities, impulse control, and brain maturation. These factors, coupled with the inherent difficulty in predicting long-term behavior in adolescents, render capital punishment inappropriate for this age group.

The author emphasizes the difficulty in accurately assessing adolescent behavior and predicting future dangerousness. They argue that adolescent development is a dynamic process, making it challenging to determine whether an adolescent’s actions reflect a stable personality or a temporary phase. The lack of reliable indicators of chronic psychopathy in adolescents further complicates the process of predicting long-term dangerousness.

The author argues that adolescent immaturity also impacts their participation in the criminal justice process. Research suggests that adolescents are more susceptible to false confessions, highlighting the potential for errors in legal proceedings. The author concludes that individualized capital sentencing cannot adequately address these developmental factors, increasing the risk of wrongful executions.

Summary of Argument

The argument against executing individuals aged 16 and 17 centers around the developmental immaturity of adolescents. Studies show that teenagers in this age group are still developing their decision-making abilities, including their capacity for impulse control and consideration of consequences. Their brains, particularly the frontal lobes responsible for executive functions, haven't fully matured. This immaturity can lead to risky behavior and impulsive actions, often peaking around age 18.

Even though some adolescents might engage in criminal activity, it often doesn't reflect a fully formed personality. The majority of adolescent offenders do not continue to commit violent crimes as adults. The argument emphasizes that the developing nature of an adolescent's character makes them unsuitable for capital punishment. Their capacity for change and evolving sense of responsibility are not fully established, making it difficult to accurately assess their future dangerousness.

The transient nature of adolescence further complicates the issue. It is challenging to determine an adolescent's character and dangerousness accurately, as they can change significantly between the time of the crime and sentencing. This inherent instability makes predicting future behavior risky and increases the potential for wrongful execution.

Finally, the authors argue that adolescent immaturity affects their participation in the legal process. They are more likely to falsely confess to crimes due to their underdeveloped decision-making abilities. These factors create a risk of error that cannot be fully corrected through individualized sentencing.

Summary of Argument

Teens are still growing up. Their brains are not fully developed, especially the part that helps them make good decisions. This is why they might take risks or act impulsively. Teenagers are not always good at understanding how their actions might affect others. They might not think about the consequences of their choices. Even though some teenagers might act in ways that are against the law, most grow out of this behavior.

It's hard to tell what a teenager will be like as an adult. Their personalities and behavior are still changing. So it's difficult to predict whether a teenager who has done something bad will continue to be a danger to others when they grow up.

Teenagers might seem more grown up when they are being judged by the court. But, this might not be a true picture of how they acted at the time of the crime.

Because of their developing brains, teenagers might not be able to fully understand the legal process. Some teenagers have been tricked into admitting to crimes they didn't do. This is because they are not always good at making decisions on their own.

It's important to remember that teenagers are still learning and growing. They need to be treated differently than adults in the legal system.