Menu

Innocence Shattered – Justice Challenged: Unraveling the Dilemma of Prosecuting Young Killers in an Era of Evolving Neuroscience and Shifting Moral Boundaries

Publications, Research paper

Fouzaan Ahsan1

Abstract

This paper delves into the controversial issue of determining the legal age at which one can be prosecuted for heinous crimes by examining various legal approaches to treatment of juvenile offenders that reveals considerable discrepancies in the ages at which individuals are considered to bear criminal responsibility. The study is concerned with the development of adolescent brain maturity, emphasizing on the aspects that are very important to criminal responsibility like risk assessment, impulse control, and moral reasoning.

This will involve carefully studying different approaches towards reducing the minimum age for criminal liability in terms of heinous offenses by balancing between retributive justice and public safety needs with those of rehabilitative juvenile justice purposes. The paper presents documented crimes committed by minors to illustrate that crime doesn’t have an age. The study also takes into account the seriousness of the crime as well as the age at which it was done.

This approach seeks to achieve harmony between the protection of society and the recognition of the developing abilities of adolescents. According to the study, the complexity of the matter is high; its consequences are far-reaching in relation to the young offenders and the whole community. Is the intensity of a crime a factor in determining when a minor should stand trial as an adult?

Keywords: Young Offenders, Heinous Crimes, Impulse Control, Criminal Responsibility, Retributive Justice, Juvenile Justice.

1Author: Fouzaan Ahsan BALLB(Hons), 1st Year Student, Amity University, Kolkata; fouzaanahsan40@gmail.com; +91 7044166200

  1. Introduction

At what age should a young offender have to face the full weight of the law? The paper explores this very issue of juvenile criminal responsibility, where lines are blurred between childhood and adulthood in the face of shocking crimes. We happen to live in a world where children, at times barely old enough to understand what their acts really mean and imply, turn to commit such acts that shake the very fabric of society. The spectrum of crimes, ranging from schoolyard brawls to willful homicide, is provocative of our sense of innocence, culpability, and justice.

This research treads a thin line between the development of the adolescent brain and the harsh, barbarous facet of violent crime. We will cover some cases that really stretch our legal and moral frameworks beyond the limits of our comfort: Should one who committed murder as a child be tried as an adult? When does the crime outweigh the age of the criminal? As we stand at this juncture, the scales of justice must be balanced against youthful complexities. The paper shall attempt to somewhat dispel these prejudices, generate debate, and find a way forward in a world where sometimes, shockingly young, the faces are that steer crimes of violence.

  1. Background and Importance of the Issue

Determining the legal age, at which heinous crimes can be considered as fit for prosecution, is a debatable subject that connects developmental psychology, criminal justice and human rights. In the past, legal systems differed greatly in dealing with juvenile offenders which indicate diverse societal perceptions and diverse levels of scientific knowledge in relation to adolescent development.

According to advances in neuroscience, impulse control, risk assessment, and moral reasoning are important aspects of brain maturity that develop up to a person’s mid-20s. This actually suggests how young offenders are treated under the law. The American Psychological Association2 highlights that the, “adolescent brains are not yet fully mature in regions and systems related to higher-order executive functions such as impulse control, planning ahead and risk avoidance.”

  1. Objectives of the Study

The main goal of this research is to investigate three components that are legal, developmental, and ethical relating to the establishment of criminal responsibility age for dreadful crimes. This consists of comparing different legal areas, assessing the development of teenagers and weighing retributive justice against rehabilitation-learning methods. The study aims to provide policy recommendations

2American Psychological Association, ‘Justice for teens’ (2017) https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/10/justice-teens accessed 13 July 2024

aimed at reconciling the necessity to protect the society and the recognition of developmental capacities of adolescents.

  1. Thesis Statement

This article discusses the necessity of treating seriously vicious act crimes by those who are underage, thus it suggests that criminal responsibility standards must reflect the information provided by developmental science in this area. Consequently, it posits a moderate path—the harmonization of punitive justice with rehabilitation principles—a necessary condition for achieving fairness, and security, whilst also treating children with respect.

  1. Literature Review
  1. Historical Context of Juvenile Criminal Responsibility

The concept of juvenile criminality3 has greatly evolved with time. Traditionally, kids were usually punished as if they were grown-ups in the eye’s of law. For instance, in Medieval Europe, children who were as young as seven years old could be tried as well as punished as grown-ups were being punished. During the 19th century, which is known to be a progressive period in America, this was when there were first Juvenile Courts which acknowledged the fact that kids ought to be treated differently based on their growing up stages. This change happened because people realized that children are not as mature or can not be rehabilitated at the same level as adults. Many nations had created different laws for kids by the mid-1900s that were oriented towards reform instead of penalties.

  1. Developmental Psychology and Adolescent Brain Maturity

Critical insights into adolescent brain development have been made possible by recent advances in developmental psychology and neuroscience. Studies4 seem to suggest that the prefrontal cortex–the area of our brain that helps us make decisions, evaluate risks and control impulses–does not fully mature until around the age of 25 years. It has significant implications for understanding juvenile behavior as well as their capacity for criminal responsibility, such as, research has demonstrated that

3 Office of Justice Programs, ‘Juvenile Court at 100 Years: A Look Back’ (1999) https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/ abstracts/juvenile-court-100-years-look-back accessed 8 July 2024

4 National Institute of Mental Health, ‘The Teen Brain: 7 Things to Know’ (NIMH, 2021) https://www.nimh.nih.gov/sites/

default/files/documents/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know/teen-brain-7-things-to-know.pdf accessed 8

July 2024

teenagers are more likely to engage in risky activities while having limited ability to perceive future consequences of their actions.

  1. Risk Assessment

The prefrontal cortex of adolescents is developing, thus they are more likely to be involved in risky activities. This area is essential for planning, making decisions and predicting possible future outcomes. According to Steinberg5 (2008), in research, the limbic system which propels emotions as well as rewards is very active at adolescent stage thereby overpowering the prefrontal cortex which is underdeveloped. This neurological disbalance is one factor reason for more cases of hazardous and spontaneous behavior among teens.

  1. Impulse Control

Brain development also affects impulse control drastically. Since adolescent’s prefrontal cortex takes more time to mature they usually face challenges in controlling their impulses. Consequently, they may find it hard refusing instant temptations or reflecting on what might happen as a result of what they have done. According to research published in the journal Developmental Review6, “adolescents’ cognitive capacities may be similar to those of adults, but their psychosocial immaturity influences their decision-making in ways that distinguish them from adults.”

  1. Moral Reasoning

Moral reasoning is what allows a person to be able to separate right from wrong and decide on what actions are worth following, it also improves while the adolescent is growing up. According to Lawrence Kohlberg7, people move from acting according to what seems right and necessary for self- protection to more unconscious choices at some point later in their lives. This can affect the decisions juveniles make and how they understand the results of their actions because they are often in the initial stage of such a growth.

5 Laurence Steinberg, ‘A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-Taking’ (2008) 28 Developmental Review

78 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002 accessed 13 July 2024

6 ibid.

7 Lawrence Kohlberg, The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice (Harper & Row 1981)

  1. Existing Legal Frameworks and Standards

Legal jurisdictions vary greatly in the juvenile criminal responsibility laws to the contrary; for instance, it may be 7 years in some states in America that a person should be able to answer for his or her actions while in Europe this age is considered too low hence they are put at a higher level. Whereas, European nations generally have higher minimum ages than in Africa with the lowest minimum age being 14-16 years old while most countries’ hold at 16 years as the legal age limit for adults. A single standard was proposed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 8where they set it to highness. A person below 12 years must not stand trial and decided that states should take it upon themselves to raise theirs towards that figure or beyond this figure if possible by emphasizing upon improving lives rather than hurting people.

  1. Case Studies of Juvenile Offenders

Analyzing example cases of young criminals who have committed terrible crimes can bring important lessons on how the same kind of incidents are covered in different legal moments.

  1. Regina v. Mary Flora Bell 19689

The case of a ten-year-old aroused international interest, yet it shared many features with those of older offenders. Mary Bell, who lived in Newcastle upon Tyne, England in 1968, was convicted of manslaughter for killing two young boys called Martin Brown and Brian Howe. At the time of the first killing, Mary was only 10 years old and was 11 years old by the time of the trial. Her case is important due to both her age as well as the type of offense committed and following judicial processes.

Mary Bell grew up in an unstable environment where his mom was said to be very abusive and neglectful. It’s therefore probable that this caused Mary’s behavioral problems. On the day before turning eleven years old (May 25th interval), she murdered her neighbor’s son, a four-year-old boy named Martin Brown by strangulation at an abandoned building located at Scotswood Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, England. Since there were no external marks of injury present on Martin’s body when his mother found him lying dead inside their house on that very early morning, police categorized it as just an accident.

8 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ‘General Comment No. 10 (2007) Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice’ https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/CRC.C.GC.10.pdf accessed 13 July 2024

9 “Mary Bell, The 10-Year-Old Murderer Who Shocked 1960s England” (All That’s Interesting, 2023) https://

allthatsinteresting.com/mary-bell

Mary and Norma Bell, a friend who was unrelated to her, strangled 3-year-old Brian Howe some time later after few months. In particular, Mary used scissors to disfigure his body by putting an “M” on his belly hence revealing that this was not just something that was done accidentally but rather intentionally planned by someone with evil intentions towards innocent children and it therefore surprised even those in power.

Mary Bell was discovered to have committed manslaughter as a result of diminished responsibility based on the opinion of the psychiatrists who described her exhibiting symptoms typical of psychopathy in her trial. Such a case pointed out how hard it could be to charge kids under age especially those below six years because they are accountable but at the same time they should not fail upon understanding that in fact Mary suffered from very severe mental problems when she killed these kids.

Mary had to be in custody, the duration of this being open-ended and dependent on how much she had reformed. In 1980, she was let out on parole after spending 12 years at different places of servitude or punishment. The incident brought up emerging moral issues pertaining to juvenile justice, mainly related with whether or not children should receive any form of punishment or rather correction measures.

  1. State of Florida v. Lionel Alexander Tate 200110

One of the youngest people in the United States convicted of first-degree murder and whose life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was ensured at the age of 12 was Lionel Tate after he killed six-year-old Tiffany Eunick in 1999.

Lionel Tate reportedly emulated professional wrestling moves he witnessed on TV in the killing of Tiffany Eunick. She had a lot of damage including a broken skull, a broken rib, a liver that had been cut and excess bruises which spoke about a serious assault that took place over some time. Prosecutors dismissed his argument that this death had happened accidentally except by pointing out how severe they were.

Lionel stood trial as an adult and was convicted of first-degree murder. This led to a mandatory life sentence with no possibility of being set free before death. His being found guilty made many people

10 ‘Latest Lionel Tate Sentence Puts End to Court Saga’ (ABA Journal, 2008) https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ latest_lionel_tate_sentence_puts_end_to_court_saga accessed 13 July 2024

talk about whether to deal with criminal acts by kids the same way grown up men do because there might be some changes which occur in children physically and psychologically.

Lionel’s conviction was overturned in 2004 by an appeals court that ruled that the mental competency of Lionel had not been properly examined before his trial. Lionel was given a plea agreement and he accepted it leading to his punishment being reduced to one year house arrest plus ten years probation. He however broke the terms of his probation later and got convicted of burglary with violence that happened in 2005 by being given a thirty year jail term.

Imposing harsh sentences on young offenders is quite a challenge as illustrated by the Lionel Tate case. According to the critics, it was way too severe to give a twelve-year-old life imprisonment without parole because he was not mature enough in terms of development and had chances for change.

  1. Discrepancies and Trends in Legal Approaches

The ideal approach toward the criminal liability of juveniles behaves significantly different across jurisdictions, not only for varied legal traditions but also diversities in cultural value systems and social priorities. With that regard, we discuss some of the main discrepancies and arising trends in juvenile justice policies around the world.

The Scandinavian countries, such as Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, have a traditional history of following the rehabilitative juvenile justice approach. The approach focuses on social welfare intervention with an emphasis on its core components of rehabilitation and reintegration of the juvenile offenders into society.

The welfare state model predominantly shapes the Norwegian system of juvenile justice. The focus of the country is on treatment and education rather than punishment. Swedish law is focused on the best interests of the child and lays great emphasis on his or her rehabilitation. Offenses by juveniles are usually not treated as criminal justice issues but are rather handled as a social service. The Danish juvenile justice system focuses more on rehabilitation and social welfare, unlike some of the states in the United States, that take a more punitive approach towards juvenile justice with serious offenses. Many American states have laws providing for the transfer of juveniles to adult courts charged with serious crimes. This practice was based on the belief that certain crimes are so heinous that they warranted adultlike responsibility. Trends in juvenile justice-related policy over the last several years suggest an increasing appreciation for the role of developmental science in informing the law.

Adolphs said that through the research findings in adolescent brain development, it had been documented that juveniles, as compared with adults, have smaller capacities in impulse control, risk assessment, and mature decision making.

Another major emerging trend is the application of restorative justice practices, which focuses on healing harm created by criminal behavior through offender reconciliation with the victim and community. Restorative justice programs focus on holding youth responsible while spending time providing the opportunity for youth to make amends and teaching new skills to change the problematic behaviors.

Treatment of young offenders mirrors the wider societal values and priorities. Such extraordinary balance among society’s protection, justice, and bringing the youthful offender back to useful, productive life is a challenge in constantly changing legal systems.

  1. Analysis of Developmental Considerations
  1. Brain Development and Its Effect on Criminal Responsibility

One of the significant implications of adolescent brain development is about criminal responsibility. It has been proved that the prefrontal cortex, responsible for executive functions like planning, decision-making, and impulse control, keeps developing well into the mid-20s. The maturation process affects the adolescents’ capacity to weigh risks and control impulses effectively. As stated by Steinberg, “adolescents’ susceptibility to peer influence, their tendency toward risk-taking, and their poor impulse control are all related to the immaturity of their prefrontal cortex” (2008). This neurological immaturity may diminish their culpability and competence to stand trial in comparison to adults.

  1. Risk Assessment, Impulse Control, and Moral Reasoning

Asynchronous development in the limbic system and the prefrontal cortex in adolescents tends to mean that they generate increased risk-taking behaviors having poor impulse control. During adolescence, the limbic system is at full force, characterized by driving emotions and reward-seeking behavior, often tolling over a yet-to-mature prefrontal cortex. Hence, this imbalance leads to decisions that prefer immediate rewards over long-term consequences. As Steinberg puts it, “the cognitive capacities of adolescents may be similar to those of adults, but their psychosocial immaturity influences their decision-making in ways that distinguish them from adults.”.

Moral reasoning also changes in adolescence. According to Kohlberg’s moral development stages, adolescents move from a pre-conventional level of obedience and punishment to more complex levels of conventional social rules and laws. As observed, this is not uniform. Many will remain to attain higher stages of moral reasoning only at adulthood.

  1. Implications for Legal Standards

Because, as outlined above, adolescents differ significantly from adults in many important ways, there are serious implications for legal standards of criminal responsibility. Accordingly, legal systems must reconcile this tension between accountability and developmental immaturity. International standards—endorsed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child— urge that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should at least be 12 years and that priority has to be given to rehabilitation rather than punishment.

Developmental science has a potential role in informing legal standards and correlatively in the enactment of more fitting justice policies. For instance, some have argued that focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment in juvenile justice systems can reduce the risk of long-term negative effects of criminal involvement for adolescents. There is surely every possibility of both enshrining the rights of young offenders and taking into account their developmental limitations while also ensuring public safety.

(V) Conclusion

Thus, our analyses are founded upon the view that adolescents are less mature than adults in ways relevant to their culpability and competence to stand trial. Developmental knowledge about the adolescent brain and its implications for criminal responsibility is essential for the evolution of a fair and just system of laws.

Armed with neuroscience’s new understanding—that is, that brain development in the prefrontal cortex areas responsible for executive function, including planning, decision-making, and impulse control, endures well into an individual’s mid-20s—it becomes easy to understand how this trajectory of development influences adolescents’ risk assessment, impulse management, and moral reasoning. This could be a result of the fact that, owing to an increase in activity in the limbic system, which drives emotions and rewards, adolescents often override the underdeveloped prefrontal cortex. This

has been argued to result in choices that focus on immediate rewards at the expense of long-term consequences and is thereby associated with higher instances of risky impulsive behavior.

The case studies—Mary Bell in the United Kingdom and Lionel Tate in the United States—partake of the intricate act of balancing between accountability, rehabilitation, and developmental immaturity. Convicted at age 11 for manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment at age 12, Mary Bell and Lionel Tate bring forth different ways legal systems can treat young offenders. These cases show not only how difficult it is to prosecute young offenders but also that there must be a balancing solution—one that addresses severity on one hand and developmental limitations on the other.

The legal requirement regarding the minimum age of criminal responsibility differs significantly between jurisdictions. For example, Scandinavian countries have been very lenient, focusing more on rehabilitation and social welfare interventions rather than punitive measures. Other jurisdictions may, however, veer towards being punitive and transfer the juveniles to adult courts in the case of severe offenses. The trends have been that more countries recognize the developmental science behind juvenile justice policies; therefore, there is a move towards advocating for increased minimum ages and more rehabilitative approaches in these fields.

In such a way, it would be possible to create more appropriate and effective justice policies by integrating developmental science into the legal standards. Strategies within the juvenile justice system that focus on the rehabilitation aspects rather than punishment could help reduce some of the possible long-term negative effects of involvement in crime on adolescents. It is through knowing the developmental limitations of young offenders that their rights can be better safeguarded while simultaneously protecting public safety.

It is true that heinous offenses by minors deserve serious attention, but it is still important to develop the legal framework in a developmentally informed way. Young offenders ought to be held accountable in a manner entailing elements of both retributive and rehabilitative justice to make them recognize and respect the developmental capacities and potential of reformation. As we move into greater understanding of the development of an adolescent and his/her role in criminal responsibility, a question we need to ask ourself is: how can we structure a system of justice that both protects society while providing for the rehabilitation of young offenders?

References
Books
  1. James Garbarino, Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them (Anchor 2000) https://archive.org/details/lostboyswhyourso0000garb accessed 8 July 2024.
  2. Richard J. Bonnie et al., Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach (National Academies Press 2013) https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/14685/reforming-juvenile- justice-a-developmental-approach accessed 8 July 2024.
Articles
  1. Laurence Steinberg, ‘Risk Taking in Adolescence: What Changes, and Why?’ (2004) Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/ annals.1308.002 accessed 8 July 2024.
Surveys
  1. ‘Juvenile Diversion Guidebook’ (Models for Change) https://modelsforchange.net/publications/ 301/Juvenile_Diversion_Guidebook.pdf accessed 8 July 2024.
  2. ‘Youth Justice: Lessons From the Last 50 Years’ (The Sentencing Project) https:// www.sentencingproject.org/publications/youth-justice-lessons-from-the-last-50-years/ accessed 8

July 2024.

Journals
  1. Laurence Steinberg et al., ‘Age Differences in Future Orientation and Delay Discounting’ (2009) 80 Child Development 28 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01244.x accessed 8 July 2024.
  2. Elizabeth Cauffman and Laurence Steinberg, ‘Emerging Findings from Research on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice’ (2000) 7 Victims and Offenders 428 https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15564886.2012.713901 accessed 8 July 2024.
  3. Laurence Steinberg et al., ‘Age Differences in Future Orientation and Delay Discounting’ (2009) 80 Child Development 28 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01244.x accessed 8 July 2024.
  4. Terrie E. Moffitt, ‘Adolescence-limited and Life-course-persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy’ (1993) 100 Psychological Review 674 https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674 accessed 8 July 2024.