Back in 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that it was impermissible under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to execute a juvenile offender under the age of 18 when they committed a capital crime. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). In 2021, the Washington Supreme Court considered whether the constitutional requirement that prohibits mandatory life without parole sentences for defendants under 18 extends to those defendants aged 18-21. In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke, 197 Wash.2d 305, 482 P.3d 276 (2021). Though the court re-examined the penalty of youthful offenders, sixteen years has allowed science to have a say in the decision.
Neuroscience played a large role in determining the court’s decision. Throughout the majority opinion, concurrence, and dissent, the word “brain” was used nearly 2 dozen times and the words “neuroscience” or “neurological” 13 times. Neuroscientists now know that the differences between juveniles and adults, as recognized in Roper, are present in those over 18. These differences can extend to nearly 20 years of age, leaving the brain undeveloped until this time.
No two offenders are the same, however. Think of your friends or siblings. Each person matured at their own pace, without a reasonable level of predictability. There is a variability in individual attributes of youthfulness that should grant the court discretion as to when these youthful qualities should apply. No meaningful neurological bright line exists between the age of 17 and 20, meaning there is no clear-cut answer. Therefore, courts should have discretion to consider the mitigating qualities of youth into account when sentencing defendants within this age range.
The court held that just as courts must exercise discretion before sentencing a 17 year old to die in prison, so must they exercise the same discretion when sentencing an 18, 19, or 20 year old. The court reasoned that “biological and psychological development continues into the early twenties, well beyond the age of majority”. This conclusion makes mandatory life without parole sentences unconstitutional for offenders younger than 21.
Justice Owens, dissenting, presents an argument that should be given thought, too. She reasons that redrawing the lines of a juvenile based on brain development evidence can leave room for, perhaps, too much discretion. It begs the question of when a person should be held fully accountable as an adult.
Where do you believe the line should be drawn? What else should the courts examine before drawing that line?
In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke, 197 Wash.2d 305, 482 P.3d 276 (2021).
Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005).
-Taylor Mace
No comments:
Post a Comment