91172.pdf

Sentencing: Psychology of Juvenile Rehabilitation 157

On May 21, 1998, a 15-year-old freshman named Kipland Kinkel allegedly commit-

ted a series of heinous crimes. The young boy walked into his high school cafeteria and

opened fire on a room hill of students. He tired a total of 52 rounds which some have

described as sounding like fireworks. Kinkel's rampage left two people dead and another

22 injured. As if his killing spree at school was not tragic enough, Kinkel shot and killed

both of his parents prior to arriving at school that day.

Reviewing the hoy's history reveals that Kinkel announced to his literature class that

ho dreamed of becoming a killer and he expressed his admiration for the Unabomber.

Additionally, the day before the shootings, Kinkel was arrested for possession of a gun

at school. Rather than being incarcerated or receiving any psychological counseling or

treatment, Kinkel was released to the custody of his parents the same day.

Literature Review

As illustrated in the case of Kinkel, juveniles commit crimes every bit as heinous
as adults. However, determining what constitutes the most appropriate sentence
for juvenile offenders is highly controversial. The execution of one's parents cou-
pled with the mass murder Kinkel allegedly engaged in would make any adult
eligible for the death penalty. However, imposing a sentence for a 15-year-old
oftentimes requires a great deal more consideration than imposing a sentence
for an adult. The case of Kipland Kinkel highlights the numerous issues that
ensue in the juvenile justice system. The overarching issue is whether juvenile
offenders should be treated any differently than adult offenders.
When the juvenile court was initially established, one of the salient features of
the system was its focus on rehabilitation. Inherent in the rehabilitative model was
the notion that the disposition would be made based on its appropriateness for the
offender, not the offense (Melton et at., 1997). Therefore, when the juvenile justice
system was established as a separate entity from the adult system, it was presumed
that the juvenile offender was indeed different from the adult offender. However,
the differences that were recognized between adult and juvenile offenders had both
positive and negative impacts on the juvenile justice system and led to a series of
reform measures.
In landmark cases such as Kent v. United States (1966) and In re Gault (1967),
juveniles were recognized as deserving many of the same constitutional rights that
adult offenders were granted, and were therefore entitled to many of the same due
process protections that adults received during criminal proceedings. On the one
hand, these cases acknowledged the rights of juveniles. On the other hand, they
highlighted the commonality between juveniles and adults, thereby making the
position that the two should be treated fundamentally different in the legal system
something of a double standard. After the decision rendered in In re Gault, the
juvenile court repeatedly encountered challenges to the due process clause as it
pertains to juvenile offenders (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971; In re Winship, 1970).
As a result, Grisso (1996b) notes that lawmakers became more and more supportive
of retribution and less tolerant of any efforts to rehabilitate juvenile offenders.