Anda di halaman 1dari 16

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
The appropriateness of the death
Death Penalty
penalty for juveniles is the subject of
intense debate despite Supreme
Court decisions upholding its use.
Lynn Cothern
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,
crimes as 16- and 17-year-olds to rehabilitative services, and programs designed to prevent future involve-
be sentenced to death, some ques- ment in law-violating behavior. Established in 1899 in Chicago, IL, in
tion whether this is compatible with response to the harsh treatment children received in the criminal justice
the principles on which our juvenile system, the first juvenile court recognized the developmental differences
justice system was established. between children and adults 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 crime, a
of capital punishment and Supreme
Court 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 prison without parole.

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 laws 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 violence.
(see table 1), and 74 people in the United States currently sit on death
John J.Wilson row for crimes they committed as juveniles (Streib, 2000).2
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
perceptions of public safety, and
Table 1. Executions of Juvenile Offenders,
international challenges to the January 1, 1973, through June 30, 2000
death penaltys 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 conviction.The Frederick Lashley 7/28/1993 Missouri Black 17 29
constitutionality of the juvenile Ruben Cantu 8/24/1993 Texas Latino 17 26
death penalty has been the subject Chris Burger 12/7/1993 Georgia 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 Virginia 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, 54 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 death row; notes State- 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: trials. 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

A
pproximately 20,000 people the Constitution to be cruel In response, States began to revise
have been legally executed and unusual. their statutes in 1973 to modify the
in the United States in the discretion given to sentencing
past 350 years (Streib, 2000). Exe- There is a societal consensus
authorities, and some States again
cutions declined through the that the punishment offends
began sentencing adult offenders
1950s and 1960s and ceased after civilized standards of human
to death. By 1975, 33 States had
1967, pending definitive Supreme decency.
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 72 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 defendants 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 juveniles death sentence on the
to make sentencing more equitable: reform the process by standardiz- grounds that the trial 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 guilt 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 imprisonment 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
judge must consider in making the [Y]outh is more than a chrono-
stances in relation to both the
waiver decision (Evans, 1992), logical fact. It is a time of life
crime and the offender.
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 maturity
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
By 1995, 38 States and the Federal homelife, environmental situation,
The Supreme Court rejected five
Government had enacted statutes emotional attitude, and pattern
requests between 1983 and 1986
authorizing the death penalty for of living.
to consider the constitutionality of
certain forms of murder. The juveniles record and history. imposing the death penalty upon a
juvenile (Jackson, 1996). It was not
The prospects for protecting
History of the Juvenile the public and rehabilitating the
until 1987, in Thompson v. Okla-
homa,9 that the Supreme Court
Death Penalty juvenile.
agreed to consider this specific

T homas Graunger, the first Juveniles were thus guaranteed cer- issue. The 53 decision vacated the
juvenile known to be exe- tain rights, but they still potentially defendants death sentence (at the
cuted in America, was tried faced the same punishments, 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 Plymouth Colony, 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 1980s, 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 caseKent 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 1990s, however, the annual
because it was inconsistent with sional, and international opinions. rate returned to a consistent 23
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 penaltyretribution on legislative authorization of the arrests for murder that occurred
and deterrence. Justice OConnor punishment.The dissenting judges between 1985 and 1995.
concurred, but pointed out that argued that the record of State
Oklahomas 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 States 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:

S
the Supreme Court expressly held,
ince the series of Supreme All 74 offenders are male.
in a 54 decision, that the eighth
Court decisions upholding
amendment does not prohibit the Seventy-three percent commit-
the use of the death penalty
death penalty for crimes commit- ted their crimes at age 17.
for juveniles, juvenile offenders have
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 Of their victims, 80 percent were
one-third on 15- and 16-year-olds
rejected the third part of the test, adults, 64 percent were white, and
(see table 2).
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
1980s. The rate dropped some-
the evolving standards of decency Little information exists to charac-
what in the late 1980s, possibly
in society as reflected in historical, terize juvenile capital offenders
because of cases pending before
judicial, and legislative precedents; beyond bare demographics.
the Supreme Court (Streib, 2000).
current legislation; juries 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-1980s, Lewis and
Committed as Juveniles, 19732000 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 evidence 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 Florida, 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, Nevada, and
edge past abuse or mental illness. a mitigating factor 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-
Amnesty International found simi- ently to the requirement imposed
found depression, paranoia,
lar results. In 9 of 23 juvenile by Thompson (see pages 34).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 Dugar v. State16).The same is true
More than half were indigent.
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 substance abuse before the (Cooper v. State19).The Florida
1998, in Virginias Greensville crime. Supreme Court ruled that the
Correctional Center for a crime Florida Constitution also prohibits
he committed at age 17.14 The Juveniles sentenced to death share
the death penalty for 16-year-olds
court nominated a clinical varying combinations of these miti-
(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

T
well as a result (Amnesty Inter- wenty-two Statesmore 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 jurisdictions, age 16 is expressed in
penaltyhave imposed the death
Stephens (1992) corroborated the statute; in the other 12, age 16
penalty on offenders who commit-
that of Lewis and colleagues. has been established by court ruling
ted capital offenses before age 18
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, 19732000

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
5 LA 10 0 1 11 0 2 5 4 11 11
6 GA 4 0 6 9 1 1 0 9 10 7
7 NC 5 0 2 7 0 1 0 6 7 6
7 OK 0 0 7 7 0 1 3 3 7 6
7 SC 3 0 4 7 0 0 3 4 7 7
8 OH* 5 0 1 6 0 0 1 5 6 6
8 PA 5 0 1 6 0 1 2 3 6 6
9 AZ 0 3 2 5 0 0 2 2 5 5
9 VA 3 0 2 5 0 0 2 3 5 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 introductionbut not the offenders who were under age 18
and Illinois mandated a compre- passageof 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 it8 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 California (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, Montanas legislature approved

November 2000 7
the period 198595. 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* New Hampshire* Arkansas
Illinois* N. Carolina* Delaware The United States has not adopted
Kansas* Texas* Idaho
several international bans on the
Maryland* Indiana* juvenile death penalty. Introduced
Montana* Kentucky* 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 York* 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,
International life imprisonment without possibil-
the U.N.s Human Rights Com-
ity of release for crimes commit-
Context ted while a juvenile, is a human
mittee, which monitors compliance
with the ICCPR, asked the United

W ith increasing globaliza-


tion and a developing
world economy, it is
difficult not to look beyond the
borders of the United States to
rights issue (see pages 1012 for
a discussion of life imprisonment
without possibility of release
(parole)). According to Amnesty
International, since the adoption
States to withdraw the reservation
(Amnesty International, 1998). In
1998, the United States was again
asked to withdraw its reservation,
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 worlds 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, 19851995 capital offenders, correctional facili-
Age at Date of
ties could more effectively provide
Country Name of Offender Execution Execution programs that address offenders
Bangladesh Mohammed Sleim 17 February 27, 1986 needs. An additional difficulty is the
Iran Kazem Shirafkan 17 1990 difference in how the courts han-
Three unnamed males 16, 17, 17 September 29, 1992 dle juvenile capital offenders. Some
Iraq Five Kurdish males 1517 NovemberDecember 1987 young offenders are kept in juvenile
Eight Kurdish males 1417 December 3031, 1987 court, while others are transferred
Nigeria Matthew Anu 18 February 26, 1989 to criminal court.These offenders
Pakistan One male 17 November 15, 1992 face a variety of sentencing pat-
Saudi Arabia Sadeq Mal-Allah 17 September 2, 1992 terns, depending primarily on State
Yemen Nasser Munir Nasser 13 July 21, 1993 law, the local and national political
alKirbi
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 China, 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 Nations resources
members, the United States and ty for their crimes. Each parti- both human and financial.
Somalia 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
in addition to other scenes from been developed to prevent juve-
Sentencing and their lives (Matthews, 1995). nile delinquency. Minimizing risk
Program Options A qualitative evaluation found factors and maximizing protective

A 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
ate the effects of program- the program gave them insight into adolescence 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 significantly reducing the number
Reference Service (NCJRS) data-
and program options for juvenile of juveniles penetrating the juve-
base reveals scant research on
capital offenders is difficult in light nile and criminal justice systems.
programs for juvenile capital of-
of the lack of knowledge about this Many interventions geared toward

November 2000 9
Life in Prison Without Possibility of Release
The justice systems 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 offendersincluding 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 States argument that proportionality
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 Courts willingness to undertake a
offenses in criminal court. In Washington State, detailed analysis of the proportionality of a sentences
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 Courts 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 petitioners 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 1980s, 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
the possibility of parole) imposed under a Texas inference of gross disproportionality.9 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 petitioners life the defendants 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 amendments 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 rape, 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
nile offenders11 (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
ual mitigating circumstances (Logan, 1998).12 The and is intolerable to fundamental fairness.23
Ninth Circuit Court 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 victs 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 Courts 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 juveniles 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 defendants age,only a
an offenders 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
accomplice).28 The Illinois Supreme Court has not, (7th Cir. 1995) (refused to consider age of 15-year-old offender in chal-
lenge of life sentences constitutionality).
as yet, addressed the constitutionality of the 15
Harris, 93 F.3d at 585.
sentencing law as applied to juveniles convicted as 16
Harris, 93 F.3d at 585.
accomplices in murder trials (Hanna, 2000). 17
Harris, 93 F.3d at 583, quoting Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1005 (Kennedy, J.,
concurring).

Endnotes People v. Hines, 938 P.2d 833, 443 (Cal. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct.
18

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, revd 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-
tioned to the offense).
22
Workman, 429 S.W.2d at 377.
4
445 U.S. 263 (1980).
23
Workman, 429 S.W.2d 374, 378 (Ky. 1968).
5
Rummel, 445 U.S. at 272.
24
779 P.2d 944 (Nev. 1989).
6
463 U.S. 277 (1983).
25
Naovarath, 779 P.2d at 946.
7
Solem, 463 U.S. at 291292.
26
Naovarath, 779 P.2d at 94647. See also People v. Dillon, 668 P.2d 697,
72627 (Cal. 1983) (reversing life sentence imposed on 17-year-old,
8
501 U.S. 957 (1991). noting youths 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

I ndividuals who were juveniles


1
These States are Alabama, Arizona,
on subsequent reoffense rates.23 Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Graduated sanctions systems, at the time they committed a
Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
designed to place sentenced capital offense continue to be Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New
juvenilesespecially serious, vio- sentenced to the death penalty in Hampshire, North Carolina,
lent, and chronic offendersinto the United States. Although the Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South
number of juvenile offenders Carolina, South Dakota,Texas, Utah,
appropriate treatment programs
affected by the death penalty is Virginia, and Wyoming.
while protecting the public safety,
are being implemented in jurisdic- small, these offenders serve as a 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 1012, are
that children are malleable and tionality of the death penalty, taken from The Juvenile Death Penalty
public safety, alternatives available Today, a report that first appeared in
that research-based interventions
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.
nile offenders positively and con- ing the fates of these youth, and,
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 due process rights that the reports almost invariably
of youth. under-report the number of death-
on death row or subject them to 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 youths success at school.

Adolescents whose mothers received nurse home OJJDPs 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. Criminology
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- G.A. Res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N.
22
Confinement 22(2):391437.
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 recidivism rates by as much Journal of Psychiatry 145(5):585589.
performed neurometric quantitative as 40% and that the average inter-
EEGs; 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 19731995. 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.
19731995, which states that the Washington, DC: American Bar Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
most common errors found in capital Association. Inc., pp. 313345.
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 33:681725.
innocent or does not deserve the
death penalty (accounting for another Amnesty International. 1998. On the Matthews, S. 1995. Juvenile capital
1619 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):1012.
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. 9732 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):467501. 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):95131. Law Bulletin 28(3):246275.

14 Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention


Coordinating Council Members
As designated by legislation, the Coordinating Councils 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
Acting Administrator Service The Honorable Adele L. Grubbs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Harris Wofford Judge
Delinquency Prevention Chief Executive Officer Juvenile Court of Cobb County, Georgia
The Honorable Donna E. Shalala, Ph.D. Corporation for National and The Honorable Gordon A. Martin, Jr.
Secretary Community Service Associate Justice
U.S. Department of Health and Human Practitioner Members Massachusetts Trial Court
Services Robert A. Babbage, Jr. The Honorable Michael W. McPhail
The Honorable Alexis M. Herman Senior Managing Partner Judge
Secretary InterSouth, Inc. Juvenile Court of Forrest County,
U.S. Department of Labor Larry K. Brendtro, Ph.D. Mississippi
The Honorable Richard W. Riley President Charles Sims
Secretary Reclaiming Youth 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.


Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Additional Resources Sanborn, J.B. 1996. Policies regarding
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):151178.
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 1973June 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
1973June 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):2830.

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. G91

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 1012.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai