consistently relied on psychological findings, those
findings are relevant to the legal debate.Supreme Court Rulings
In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court in Thompson v.
Oklahomaoverturned a death sentence for a 15-year-
old offender because it violated the Eighth Amendment
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The
Court found that the community’s “evolving standards
of decency” were incommensurate with the execution
of a juvenile. The Court considered four factors: the
number of state statutes prohibiting the juvenile death
penalty for 15-year-olds, jury sentencing statistics, the
opinions of national and international organizations,
and the Court’s analysis of whether the juvenile death
penalty accomplished the goals and purposes of the
punishment.
A year later, the Court reexamined whether the
death penalty should be available for 16- or 17-year-
olds in Stanford v. Kentucky(1989). This time, the
Court failed to find consensus in state statutes and
held that the death penalty for these youths was not in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Surprisingly, the
Court ignored all other measures of evolving commu-
nity standards that were considered in Thompson.
Making matters even more confusing, the Court did
an about-face in 2005, finding the juvenile death
penalty unconstitutional in Roper v. Simmons and
determining that the community’s standards of decency
had evolved to oppose executing juveniles of any age.
Furthermore, relying on psychological research, the
Court found that the juvenile death penalty did not sat-
isfy the punishment goals of deterrence and retribution,
due in part to juveniles’ immaturity and their inability
to make rational judgments that consider the outcomes
of committing violent crimes.
Psychologists have contributed to these legal
developments in two ways. First, they have conducted
polls to measure community support for the juvenile
death penalty. Second, they have conducted research
testing the development of juveniles.Public Opinion Research
The Supreme Court has sometimes referred to the
results of public opinion polls measuring the “evolv-
ing standards” of the community. Polls have shown
changing support over time. Although 28% of respon-
dents supported the juvenile death penalty in 1936,only 19% supported the punishment in 1953, and only
11% were supportive in 1957. Surprisingly, a 1965
poll reported 21% support for juvenile executions,
despite declining public support for the death penalty
in general. Demonstrating even more variability, a
1988 poll showed 44% support and a 1989 poll
showed 57% support for juveniles over 16. At the
same time, another 1989 poll found 25% to 30% sup-
port for executing offenders as young as 14 years.
More recently, a 2002 Gallup poll found 31% support
for juvenile executions. Exhibiting regional differ-
ences, a 1991 poll in the southeastern United States
found that 64% supported executing juveniles aged 16
or over and 35% supported executing those under 16.
Still, the level of support (83%) for executing adults
was much higher.
Support is not uniform, however, as Whites and con-
servatives are typically more supportive of the death
penalty in general than their counterparts. Similarly,
participants who are older, male, White, and conserva-
tive are more supportive of the juvenile death penalty.
Despite this variability among polls, the trend indi-
cates a general disfavor among respondents especially
when it comes to executing juveniles as compared
with executing adults. The Roper ruling did not rely
on polling results; nevertheless, findings from this
research do agree with the Court’s judgment that the
juvenile death penalty now does offend the commu-
nity’s evolving standards of decency.Research on Juvenile Development
A second line of psychological research argues against
executing juveniles because their limited developmen-
tal judgment capacities mitigate their culpability. The
American Psychological Association filed an amicus
brief in the Roper case that referred to research demon-
strating that juveniles are biologically, psychosocially,
and cognitively less developed than adults. These dif-
ferences suggest that the death penalty does not fulfill
its purposes when the state invokes it against juveniles
who commit homicide. It is not possible to deter juve-
niles from committing homicide if they do not engage
in a rational cost-benefit analysis before engaging in
violence.
As adolescents progress to adulthood, they develop
capabilities, attention, information-processing skills, and
memory, which makes them more reasoned decision
makers. Some research suggests that older juveniles are
similar to adults in their reasoning skills, at least when442 ———Juveniles and the Death PenaltyJ-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 442