Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

tested in laboratory settings (e.g., participants imagine

how they would react to hypothetical situations).

However, critics argue that differences between adult and

juvenile judgments are much more likely to emerge in

real-world settings than in laboratories.

Some researchers concluded that juveniles’ psychoso-

cial development remains immature even in later adoles-

cence. As a result, juveniles are more susceptible to peer

influence, are ineffective in weighing the risks and

rewards of their behavior, have difficulties in reasoning

about the long-term consequences of behavior, and have

a lower capacity for self-management (e.g., impulse con-

trol). These deficiencies affect their cost-benefit analysis,

leading them to make immature decisions.

A growing body of neuropsychological research

has confirmed that juveniles differ from adults in

important ways. For instance, recent research has

indicated that the areas of the brain that control rea-

soning (e.g., the prefrontal cortex) are the last to

develop. As such, juveniles are less competent than

adults, with less-developed capabilities for concentra-

tion, control of impulsivity, self-monitoring, and deci-

sion making. Because these areas of the brain are

underdeveloped, juveniles rely more heavily on the

amygdala, the area of the brain that processes emo-

tions. Thus, juveniles are biologically different in

ways that may decrease criminal culpability.

In sum, the age at which an offender is legally eli-

gible for the death penalty is 18. At least for now, the

legal debate surrounding the juvenile death penalty is

settled, due in part to the work of psychologists study-

ing public opinion and the development of cognitive,

emotional, and neurological capacities.

Monica K. Miller and Richard L. Weiner

See alsoDeath Penalty; Mental Illness and the Death

Penalty; Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty; Racial

Bias and the Death Penalty; Religion and the Death

Penalty

Further Readings

Boots, D. P., Heide, K. M., & Cochran, J. K. (2004). Death

penalty support for special offender populations of legally

convicted murderers: Juveniles, the mentally retarded and

the mentally incompetent. Behavioral Sciences and the

Law, 22,223–238.

Kalbeitzer, R., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (2006). Assessing the

“evolving standards of decency”: Perceptions of capital

punishment for juveniles.Behavioral Sciences and the

Law, 24,157–178.

Roper v. Simmons,543 U.S. 551 (2005).

Stanford v. Kentucky,492 U.S. 361 (1989).

Steinberg, L, & Scott, E. S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of

adolescence: Developmental immaturity, diminished

responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American

Psychologist, 58,1–10.

Thompson v. Oklahoma,487 U.S. 815 (1988).

Juveniles and the Death Penalty——— 443

J-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 443