Topic: Death penalty
Quote: That is the premise of my question. On what basis can one claim that the Constitution makes this arbitrary designation with respect to the death penalty? I simply don't see any rational argument for it.\nSo why cannot juvenile crimes which would otherwise be death penalty eligible be treated on a case-by-case basis? Under the theory of variable neurophysiology development, we could suppose that some individuals under 18 will have a fully developed moral understanding, and also some individuals 18 and over who do not.\nFair enough. But I am curious to see if anyone can defend the rationality of the rationale (whatever it is purported to be). You're obviously not obliged to do that, but that is sort of the curiosity that I have.
Response: A specific age is picked because it occurs sometime and there is no way to know in any specific individual whether their pre-frontal cortex is up to snuff or not. There is no way to judge on a case-by-case basis. If this occurs (I think it's clear that it does) and if this is a rational reason for treating persons differently (that is, of course, arguable) then the line must be drawn somewhere. \nI was wrong to say 18 is arbitrary. I misused the word. I would assume that most people have a mature CNS by that age, so that is why it is picked. The objective evidence of this is done looking at populations, not individuals. \nSubjectively, anyone who has kids will know that a young teen's judgement is pretty bizarre at times.
1.8