Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Coordinating Council
on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
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.
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
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-
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.