The New York Times ran a very interesting article today in the Health section, a conversation with psychologist Laurence Steinberg about punishment for juvenile offenders. The piece focuses on the trial of John Lee Malvo, the young man accused of committing the DC-area sniper killings along with John Muhammad. Muhammad has been convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by a Virginia jury. Malvo is on trial now in another Virginia jurisdiction.
There's plenty of stuff out there to read about the sniper killings and Malvo's defense that he was under Muhammad's powerful influence, and there's no real need for me to go into that here. But the Steinberg piece focuses on an extremely complicated and troubling issue -- how should we punish juveniles who commit horrendous crimes? Should we execute them? Should we lock them up forever, like my client who was seventeen when he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison? Or should we adopt Steinberg's view that even the worst juvenile offender has the potential to be rehabilitated, and that many such "problem children" outgrow their antisocial behavior? Given how little effort the prison system seems to make towards rehabilitating inmates of any age, there seems little likelihood that juveniles who are sentenced to standard prison terms (even in juvenile facilities) will walk out the doors equipped for productive, law-abiding lives. So to implement Steinberg's ideas (with which I tend to agree), we would need to fundamentally rethink the way we approach punishing juvenile offenders.
As best I can tell, criminal justice systems around the country are doing little towards addressing the unique circumstances facing juvenile offenders. Juvenile diversion programs have proliferated around the country, and seem to have some success in preventing recidivism by getting kids out of the criminal justice system and into mentoring, community service, and other targeted rehabilitative programs. (Incidentally, last year Colorado Governor Bill Owens cut most of the funding for juvenile diversion programs here. Those programs magically were saved from the shredder when Owens' own son committed some "youthful indiscretions" and wound up in diversion.)
But a kid like Malvo, accused of a violent crime, will never be a candidate for juvenile diversion. His options, assuming his insanity/duress defense fails and he is convicted, will be limited to life or death, and he will spend the remainder of his days either in an adult prison (he is 18 now) or possibly some type of juvenile facility. Virginia allows individuals as young as sixteen years old to be executed, so Malvo's youth will not protect him from the death penalty in that state (the second-most bloodthirsty in the country when it comes to imposing capital punishment).
I'm unequivocally opposed to the death penalty, so it's hard for me to imagine how a jury can sentence an eighteen-year-old boy to die, particularly when that boy appears to have been manipulated into committing horrific acts by a powerfully charismatic adult. How can any of us say that this young man can never, ever become a productive member of society? What service do we render to the victims, or to society as a whole, by ending his young life? Steinberg's approach, "under which most youths are dealt with in a separate justice system and none are eligible for capital punishment," seems to take into account the potential for a young offender to learn to control impulses, manage anger, and reject pressure from peers and other manipulators.
Yet as Congress and the states pass increasingly draconian sentencing statutes and strip judges of virtually all discretion to tailor sentences to reflect offender-specific circumstances, it seems unlikely that the criminal justice system ever will address effectively the unique characteristics and needs of juvenile offenders. The result, of course, is that instead of helping kids who commit crimes to turn their lives in a positive direction, instead of offering them a second chance at a productive life, the criminal justice system will become (or more accurately, remain) a reliable producer of hardened criminals.
Can someone please explain to me who benefits from this, and how?
Comments