Summary of Argument

This Brief will assist the Court by demonstrating that (1) emerging adults are a distinct class because of their unique developmental status; (2) emerging adults are a distinct class because of their unique legal and cultural status; (3) a categorical exemption is warranted because (a) a national consensus against the execution of 18-year-olds exists based on the infrequency of the practice; and (b) the practice of executing 18-year-olds is disproportionate because it serves no penological purpose; and (4) a categorical exemption is warranted.

Summary of Argument

This brief argues that emerging adults constitute a distinct class, both developmentally and legally, and should be categorically exempt from the death penalty. The argument relies on two primary points:

1. Developmental Distinctiveness: Emerging adults, defined as individuals between the ages of 18 and 25, are uniquely susceptible to developmental vulnerabilities that render them less culpable for their actions.

2. Legal and Cultural Distinctiveness: Emerging adults hold a unique legal and cultural status, characterized by evolving societal expectations and recognition of their vulnerability. This status necessitates a distinct legal framework for their treatment, particularly in the context of capital punishment.

Furthermore, the brief contends that a categorical exemption from the death penalty for 18-year-olds is warranted for the following reasons:

• National Consensus: The infrequency of executing individuals aged 18 suggests a national consensus against such practices, highlighting societal reservations about the morality and efficacy of capital punishment for this age group.

• Disproportionality: Executing 18-year-olds serves no penological purpose, as it is disproportionate to the culpability of this age group and fails to uphold the principles of proportionality and deterrence.

In conclusion, the brief advocates for a categorical exemption for 18-year-olds from the death penalty, recognizing their developmental vulnerabilities, unique legal and cultural status, and the lack of a justifiable penological purpose for executing this age group.

Summary of Argument

This brief argues that emerging adults should be categorically exempt from the death penalty. The brief demonstrates that emerging adults are a distinct class, both developmentally and legally, and that executing 18-year-olds is a practice that lacks national consensus and serves no penological purpose.

Summary of Argument

This document aims to convince the court that 18-year-olds are unique and should be treated differently from adults when it comes to the death penalty. It argues that 18-year-olds are distinct from adults because of their ongoing brain development and their position in society. The document also states that there is a growing consensus against the execution of 18-year-olds. This is because it is rarely done and serves no real purpose in punishing crime. Ultimately, the document argues that 18-year-olds should be exempt from the death penalty.

Summary of Argument

This brief will help the court understand that young adults are different from adults because of how their brains are still developing. It will also show that young adults are different because of the laws and how people think about them. The paper will then argue that the death penalty should not be used for young adults because (1) not many countries do it, showing that there is an agreement to not kill 18-year-olds; and (2) killing 18-year-olds is unfair because it doesn't help with making sure people don't commit crimes. Finally, it will say that young adults should be exempt from the death penalty.