Skip to main content


The execution of juveniles, individuals under the age of eighteen, is a hotly contested issue, with a variety of authors weighing in on the topic. This paper reviews those arguments in an effort to suggest alternative sanctions in lieu of death for juvenile offenders. We discuss how theories that seem to suggest a need for increasing punishment do not really support stiffer sanctions for young offenders under the age of eighteen, in light of the ultimate outcome. It will be argued that the death penalty was a pointless way of trying to prevent juveniles from committing violent crimes and homicides. Additionally, arguments centered around the Eighth Amendment will be examined. Currently there has been a national consensus developing against the juvenile death penalty accompanying both an increase in legislation barring it, and a decrease in the support by jurors who refuse to convict. Additionally, brain-imaging of juveniles is examined regarding the findings on culpability of juveniles when compared to adults. The purpose of this paper is to find a relationship between the decline of the imposition of the juvenile death penalty and the increase of societal opposition of the juvenile death penalty. Authors conclude that since juveniles are less culpable for their crimes and are amendable to change, the harshest sentence that should be enforced on the worst juvenile offenders would be life with parole.


This is a metadata-only record.



  • Subject
    • Criminal Justice

  • Institution
    • Dahlonega

  • Event location
    • MPR 2

  • Event date
    • 22 March 2019

  • Date submitted

    19 July 2022

  • Additional information
    • Acknowledgements:

      Stuart Batchelder