Juveniles need death penalty for serious acts

The establishment of a federal juvenile death penalty may be necessary for reversing criminal mindsets at an earlier age.  

Since the juvenile death penalty operates on executing 16- and 17-year-olds, boys made aware of the harsh punishment they can receive for murder will be fearful of committing such acts.  

It is uncertain whether most (young) U.S. citizens are fully aware that people younger than 18 can actually be sentenced to death. That being the case, the tactic of installing fear, or at least knowledge, on the given subject has become a futile effort.  

Five states already execute persons no younger than 17, while 16 states set the limit at age 16.  

While it is necessary for states to be sovereign, if strict penalties were delegated in a more consistent state-to-state manner they would be infinitely more effective. It would alert citizens of the intensity of certain crimes if they knew such a severe punishment was enforced everywhere in the country.  

Furthermore, the death penalty age limit should be lower. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that it is "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute a person younger than the age of 15 in Allen v. State in 1994. A more substantial age would be 14.  

Teens, even the really puberty-stricken ones, realize the grimness of murder, its consequences and why those punishments are adequate, and most importantly, why it is wrong.  

Torture is justifiable as cruel and unusual punishment, but executing someone who slew another is not cruel, but obligatory.  

There was a day and age when people started families at the age of 15.  

Teens make faulty decisions, no doubt, but they are able to discern with adult-like insight the inhumane nature of an action as horrific as murder. A prime example is Lionel Tate, the 14-year-old boy who "wrestled" a 6-year-old girl so ruthlessly that she suffered a split liver, ruptured kidney and fractured skull among her 30-plus injuries.  

What kind of mental rehabilitation is going to restore such a tainted conscience, such a guileless nature? How many second chances does a deceased first grader get?  

On a larger scale, young men in crime-infested urban areas are likely to be discouraged from joining bloody gangs, and other lines of illegitimate lifestyles, for fear of risking their lives in a more direct, inescapable way. It is believable that many villainous teens are so because they realize that they can only be punished to a certain extent in the legal system.  

Obviously, a 15-year-old who knows he can end up on death row for slaying someone as a means of being initiated into a gang is more likely to explore other hobbies.  

Additionally, this piece has been directed toward males because all of the juvenile offenders on death row are male.  

What is even more alarming is the fact that more than 50 percent of the victims injured by death row inmates were females.  

Young people are people, too, and all young murders are killers as well.  

Aside from mental deficiencies, there is no viable excuse for a 15-year-old to just give up a few years and a 16-year-old to get jolted for committing the same crime.  

Of course, the argument will be, "where does the age-dropping stop?"  

As previously stated, 14 is an ideal age. Vicious third graders should not be lethally injected because they may not have fully mature ideas of what is right and wrong.  

Although, kids are becoming more self-aware everyday.