Today on his show Hugh Hewitt went on a tear about the U.S. Supreme Court decision essentially outlawing the execution of minors. Don’t know if he’s blogged about it yet, but that makes no difference in what I’m about to say.
Now, from all I’ve heard on the matter it appears that Hugh is right about the flaw in the Supreme Court’s reasoning. But, his basic stand vis a vis accountablity is wrong.
Find yourself a copy of the March 2005 National Geographic and turn to page 12. At the very bottom of the second column (continued on page 13) you’ll find these words:
“The executive brain doesn’t hit adult levels until the age of 25,” says Jay Giedd of the National Institute of Mental Health, one of the lead scientists on the neuroimaging studies. “At puberty you have adult passions, sex drive, energy, and emotion, but the reining in doesn’t happen until much later.” It is no wonder, perhaps, that teenagers seem to lack good judgement or the ability to restrain impulses. “We can vote at 18,” says Giedd, “And drive a car. But you can’t rent a car until you’re 25. In terms of brain anatomy, the only ones who have it right are the car-rental people.”
The average 15 and 16 year old can understand the difference between right and wrong, but he’s not able to restrain his impulses as a mature adult can. Not without supervision. That’s the trouble, all too many people think we should leave adolescents to their own devices. So teens, with nothing to do and no real self control, find things to do which are all too often the wrong things.
It comes down to this, you can’t leave a teen to his own devices. Teens are not mature enough to handle the responsibility and need to be kept busy. All the time. Busy at what? Depends, but busy at something. They need to be engaged, and engaged in activities that involve them completely. Completely enough to forestall any stray thoughts in a destructive direction.
We need to re-think how we deal with our adolescents. We need to find ways to keep them out of trouble, doing something productive, or at least time consuming. Were it up to me I would raise the voting, drinking, and driving age to 25. And while I would encourage responsible behavior form adolescents I would not expect them to behave as full blown adults at all times. I would, in short, expect them to act as adolescents, not adults.
That is the big problem I have with executing juvenile criminals, regardless of crime. We’re expecting them to act as adults, when they are not capable of such behavior. We set the bar too high. The great majority of our kids manage to get through without doing something major, but it’s a rare child who scrapes through with a clean slate. And when they do behave properly it’s not because they know right from wrong but more because they dread what the adult world would say and do about what they were thinking of doing.
Which last leads us to those juvenile killers. In particular a pair known as Dylan and Klebold. You remember them, the Columbine killers. Committed suicide at the end. Hewitt was of the opinion they were the perfect candidates for the death penalty, because they knew what they were doing is wrong. In that Hugh is right, and it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference. The trouble is, the two were immature and didn’t care. They had given up and were not thinking about what the world thought of their intended actions. When you get right down to it, it is really only what others might think of an adolescent’s actions that keep the twit in line.
The late John W. Campbell once opined in an editorial in the magazine Analog that people can be divided into two groups; those for whom morality comes from without, and those for whom morality comes from within. Adolescents belong to the former group, they are not able to be part of the latter. If we wish to effectively combat juvenile crime we must face up to this fact and act accordingly.
Sorry, that simply is not true. Wisdom comes with age, but knowing right from wrong is much earlier, as is impulse control.
This whole extended adolescence nonsense is an artifact of recent history, late 19th century and later. For most of human history, there were no adolescents - teens became adults with full rights and responsibilities at ages from 13 up, depending on the particular culture.
Teens going on killing sprees is even more recent (70s and later), and need I point out that that vast majority of spree/mass/serial killers are adults? I’m not impressed by pseudo-scientific nonsense attempting to minimize responsibility for actions that were largely unheard of 30 years ago.
Comment by Ken Summers — 1 Mar, 2005 @ 23:21
Agreed Ken, there are always excuses made from sick sophism so that murderers are spared execution. They are indeed artifact of recent history. It’s related to all the junk science like global warming, eg. They know what is right from wrong ; it presumptuous to say they don’t. Meantime the victims stay dead and the deterence becomes attenuated further by such persistently dangerous hocus pocus’ but PC reasonings’ from the ivory tower.
Comment by wits0 — 2 Mar, 2005 @ 00:42
I think this ruling is ludicrous. How can you not know that killing someone is wrong even at 12 or 13? How bloody stupid do you have to be? This law gives a bye to teenagers who kill and is frankly wrong.
Unlike you mythusmage I would lower the drinking, voting and everything else age to 16 and make it stick. We need to explain to young adults that they need to take responsibility for their actions. Giving them a bye because they “are children” is the wrong solution to the problem of lack of personal responsability.
I think it is absolutely evil that you can die for your country, have a child, drive, own a gun but not have a drink. I do agree with you on one thing though, we should norm the age of adulthood at one age or the other, whatever that age may be.
Comment by Andrew — 2 Mar, 2005 @ 07:00
I’m against the death penalty unless it is administered on the spot, by the intended victim(s) or someone defending them. In that case, I’m very much in favor of it, no matter what the age of the attacker.
From personal experience, I’d say I acquired a moral sense by age 16 (ie: one that wasn’t “I might get caught” but a “this is wrong"). So I do disagree from that point of view, although I’m quite willing to entertain the idea that others may take longer to acquire such a sense.
I’m even more willing to entertain the idea that some never acquire it. And my guess would be that the vast majority of murderers, and probably of other criminals, fall into that category.
Think about what you are saying. If someone really doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong, is the death penalty ever right? No matter what the age?
I think it is, but only if administered on the spot, in defense. Otherwise, lock them up. It’s cheaper. And if they turn out to be the ‘wrong person’ somewhere down the line, at least they can be released with some of their life left to live.
Comment by Kathy K — 2 Mar, 2005 @ 21:03
Please explain to me why a pregnant child of 13 is “grown up” enough to decide whether to have a partial birth abortion (ie, killing her baby) without parental notification. Yet a 17 year old unrepentant, sociopath that plans his murders in all respects (read the Missouri case files, I have) is not “grown up” enough to be eradicated from society for his crimes.
There is something seriously out of kilter here and REEKS of hypocracy and blatant politics by judges legislating from the bench, which MUST be curtailed.
Comment by Bill Ewing — 3 Mar, 2005 @ 02:50
Doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong? That’s the legal definition of insanity, not maturity.
I do not believe that sociopaths do not know the difference between right and wrong. They know, they just don’t care.
Comment by Ken Summers — 3 Mar, 2005 @ 09:42