The juvenile death penalty should not be allowed because it is cruel and unusual, under the 8th Amendment, and the adolescent brain does not know how to comprehend consequences and make decisions. Kevin Sanford was 17 when he was convicted of murder, sodomy, and robbery of stolen property. The US Supreme Court said that the 8th Amendment doesn’t prohibit death penalty for capital crimes committed at the age of sixteen and seventeen so he was sentenced to death for committing capital crimes. The International Journal of Children’s Rights in an article titled “Out of Step: Juvenile Death Penalty in the US” by Anne James and Joanne Cecil, said that the court held ‘no national consensus barred the imposition of capital punishment on sixteen or …show more content…
Oklahoma, Thompson was convicted of murder and robbing a store at the age of fifteen. Once Thompson turned eighteen the court said, “once a minor is certified to stand in trial as an adult, he may also, without violation the constitution to be punished as an adult.” Capital Punishment in Context said that the Supreme Court then decided the execution of juveniles fifteen and under is against the 8th Amendment. The US Supreme Court would continuously examine data on jury sentencing decisions in order to ascertain the existence of a societal consensus against the use of the death penalty on a particular group (Fagan West). Capital Punishment in Context in an article titled “The Death Penalty for Juveniles” that after doing this the Supreme Court then decided to help decide on a case, ask if the defendant would be a “future danger” to a community. In August 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court held that juvenile execution “violates evolving standards of decency” and it should be prohibited acoording to the 8th Amendment under cruel and unusual punishment. The court holding this account said basically said that the juvenile death penalty shouldn’t be allowed because it “violates evolving standards of decency” as said by the Missouri Supreme