Activists seek end to juvenile death penalty in Virginia

By LARRY O'DELL, Associated Press


RICHMOND -- Brian Bills says the state recognizes that at 16, he's not responsible enough to vote or drink alcohol - yet he's old enough to be eligible for the death penalty.

"I think there's a fundamental flaw in this logic and it needs to be addressed," the Charlottesville High School sophomore said Monday at a news conference to promote legislation ending capital punishment for juveniles.

The House Courts of Justice Committee killed similar legislation in 2004. Bills have been filed in both the House and Senate this year, and the Virginia Alliance to Abolish the Juvenile Death Penalty is planning a vigorous lobbying effort. The new coalition consists of 32 religious, civil liberties, mental health and child-advocacy organizations.

The capital murder statute now allows the death penalty for offenders who are at least 16 at the time of the crime. The legislation would raise the minimum age to 18.

Activists are making their appeal to delegates looking to bolster their law-and-order credentials for their fall campaigns. All 100 House seats are up for election in November.

"The elections don't play a part with our schedule," said Jack Payden-Travers, executive director of Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. "It's time to end the practice regardless of who's running for what office."

Payden-Travers said a jury's refusal to order the death penalty for teenage sniper Lee Boyd Malvo reflects "evolving standards of decency" that warrant abolishing capital punishment for juveniles.

But Del. David Albo, R-Fairfax and chairman of the Courts of Justice criminal law subcommittee, said the Malvo verdict proves the current system works. He said the jury determined Malvo was less culpable than his adult accomplice, John Allen Muhammad, because of Muhammad's influence and the teenager's own troubled childhood.

Activists also say recent studies show that the portion of the brain that governs impulse control is not fully developed in minors, which means they should not be held as accountable as adults.

"Anyone who has teenage children knows on a daily basis how bad their judgment can be," said Del. Albert C. Eisenberg, D-Arlington, who along with Del. Vincent F. Callahan Jr., R-Fairfax, is sponsoring the House bill.

Albo said a defense attorney can use the clinical evidence to try to keep a juvenile client from being certified as an adult. Certification for adult court is "a very, very involved process" reserved for the worst juvenile criminals, he said.

Payden-Travers said Virginia has executed 21 juvenile offenders - 19 of them black - and one is currently on death row. Only Texas has executed more juveniles than Virginia, he said.

Amnesty International has documented executions of juvenile offenders in only four countries since 2000 - nine in the United States and one each in Pakistan, Iran and the Congo.

[dhermesc]

"Brian Bills says the state recognizes that at 16, he's not responsible enough to vote or drink alcohol - yet he's old enough to be eligible for the death penalty."

If all he does is drink alcohol as a minor he doesn't need to worry about the death penalty. There are certain individuals that commit crimes so heinous that the death penalty is done not so much as punishment but as an assurance to the public this person will never have the oppurtunity to walk among society again.

[Thrawn]

he's old enough to kill isn't he?

[Thrawn]

He's probably just trying to get the drinking age reduced.:nod: :drink: :cheer:

[Oxford]

We don't need them to grow older when they're killers. Knowing right from wrong starts very early in life. If they haven't learned that lesson at sixteen, and take another's life, then they should face the consequences. There's too many people to deal with in both categories. Why waste taxpayer's money?

[lefty o]

i personally dont think age/mental capacity should have a thing to do with criminal sentencing. if you kill, you shall be killed in return. lets face it , by the age of six or seven, kids know the difference between right or wrong, and how serious killing is.

[BattleRifleG3]

I think 16 should be the age of adulthood, with school finished, and all civil liberties. With capability should come responsibility, and the fact is that 16yr olds are fully capable of mental processes, physical coordination, and physical exertion. Keeping them constrained for the next two years, or giving them freedom without responsibility (ie driving, etc) does nothing but foster immaturity.

Graduating, driving, voting, unrestricted working, drinking, taxing, sexual consent, independent exercise of the 2nd Amendment, ability to serve in armed forces, all of that I think should be at 16 with all the liberties and obligations connected with it. People's reaction is generally "Ohh, but look at those crazy 16yr olds!" But what do they magically learn in the next two years? (The next four is a better arguement.) I think that immaturity is fostered because of the delay of adulthood. These guys are as big as adults, as mentally capable as adults (capable of learning, different from actually knowing things), and should be carrying their weight and excercising their rights as adults.

You can't argue that between 16 and 18 they really learn all that much except on an individual basis, apart from the fact that the law recognizes 18 as adulthood and that doing that at 16 wouldn't have the same result. If you think 16 is too young, go all the way to 20 for some real growing up. At least that's my opinion based on experience among youth (though of course I haven't raised any.)

[Oxford]

and..BR3...many people, as you know, don't even mature at 20...let alone at much older ages. Seems that if a line has to be drawn in the sand that sixteen yrs of age would be a good place.

But then we get the problem of what to do with 14 yr olds and under who plot and kill people. Should the line be drawn even lower?

[BattleRifleG3]

I think 16 is a good standard for expecting adult responsibilities. How that applies to the death penalty, well, that's the original topic. I think the debate being raised is academic to begin with, because I didn't read of any particular incident in that article. An element to consider is that a cop doesn't read a fellow's ID before shooting in the performance of his duties to protect the public and himself. If a kid was perpetrating violence and needed to be taken out, I'd stand behind a cop that had to pull the trigger.

[Big Dog]

My personal view is that Murder should carry the Death Penalty - no exceptions, period! Age would not be a factor at all - if a twelve-year-old kills, he dies. Accidental homicide would be a different matter, but if a person kills another in cold blood, they should be taken down, hard. Tough measures for tough times.
Sentence to be carried out within six months of conviction - only one appeal possible - get it right the first time, or he fries.

I know, it'll never fly in today's fuzzy feel-good world.