Summary of Argument

Amici's experience strongly indicates that a bright-line rule categorically exempting 16- and 17-year-olds from the death penalty - no matter how elaborate the plot, how sinister the killing, or how sophisticated the cover-up - would be arbitrary at best, and downright perverse at worst. Using abbreviated descriptions of a handful of murders committed by "juvenile" offenders currently on Alabama's death-row, this brief will show that, despite their chronological age, at least some 16- and 17-year-old killers most assuredly are able to distinguish right from wrong and to appreciate fully the consequences of their murderous actions. Because a prophylactic constitutional rule taking capital punishment off the table for all such offenders would have no footing in the real world, it should be rejected.

Although this brief uses examples drawn from Alabama to make its point, the other amici hasten to note that their experiences have been no different. There simply is no basis to conclude that 16- and 17-year-olds are categorically incapable of committing heinous (and meticulously planned) murders, and there is no justification for categorically exempting them from the death penalty.

Summary of Argument

The experience of amici curiae demonstrates that a categorical exemption from the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-old offenders, regardless of the severity of the crime, would be arbitrary and potentially unjust. This brief presents examples of murders committed by individuals aged 16 and 17, currently on Alabama's death row, to illustrate that, despite their chronological age, some individuals in this age group are capable of understanding the moral implications of their actions and the consequences of their crimes. A prophylactic rule excluding all 16- and 17-year-olds from capital punishment is not grounded in reality and should be rejected.

While the brief utilizes examples from Alabama, other amici curiae confirm that their experiences have been consistent with this observation. There is no empirical basis for a categorical conclusion that 16- and 17-year-olds are inherently incapable of committing heinous and premeditated murders, and no justification for excluding them categorically from the death penalty.

Summary of Argument

The experience of amici strongly suggests that a rule categorically exempting 16- and 17-year-olds from the death penalty would be unreasonable and possibly unjust. Using examples of murders committed by "juvenile" offenders currently on Alabama's death row, this brief will demonstrate that, despite their age, some 16- and 17-year-old killers are capable of understanding right from wrong and the consequences of their actions. Such a rule would not reflect real-world circumstances and should be rejected.

While this brief focuses on Alabama, similar experiences have been observed elsewhere. There is no reason to believe that 16- and 17-year-olds are incapable of committing premeditated murders and therefore should be categorically exempted from the death penalty.

Summary of Argument

The argument presented here contends that a rule automatically excluding 16- and 17-year-olds from the death penalty, regardless of the severity of their crimes, is flawed. The brief uses examples of murders committed by individuals in this age group who are currently on Alabama's death row to demonstrate that, despite their age, some are capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. This suggests that a blanket exemption from the death penalty for all 16- and 17-year-olds is not justified. The brief acknowledges that similar experiences have been observed in other states, reinforcing the idea that there's no reason to believe these individuals are categorically incapable of committing heinous crimes.

Summary of Argument

This brief argues that a law that says 16 and 17-year-olds cannot be sentenced to death is a bad idea.

The brief uses examples of murders committed by 16 and 17-year-olds in Alabama. It argues that some of these young people were able to understand what they were doing and knew it was wrong.

The document says that this law wouldn't make sense because some young people are able to understand what they're doing.