Evolving standards of decency is used to assess the progress of a maturing society in determining what is cruel and unusual punishment in the context of the Eighth Amendment (Merlo and Benekos, 2018). Our book describes 7 Supreme Court cases that display how, over time, the standard of sentencing juveniles changed based on what was considered cruel and unusual punishment. Starting with the first case, Eddings v. Oklahoma 1982, Eddings was sentenced to death for the killing of a highway patrol officer. The Supreme Court ruled that imposing the death penalty on the 16 year old was allowed. In Thompson v. Oklahoma 1988, 15 year old Thompson was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court overturned the sentencing since Thompson was under 16 when the crime was committed. This set the standard for imposing the death penalty for anyone over the age of 16. Community standards changed between 1989 and 2005 causing the Supreme Court to revisit the issue on the minimum age a person could be sentenced to death. Roper v. Simmons 2005, changed the standard that the death penalty can not be used when sentencing juveniles. Sentencing juveniles to death was then considered cruel and unusual punishment. Graham v. Florida 2010 found that life without a chance of parole for a juvenile in a nonhomicidal offense was unconstitutional (Merlo and Benekos, 2018). Following in 2012, Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that although life without parole was allowed, each case had to be reviewed preventing mandatory life without parole sentences. To add to Miller v. Alabama, Montgomery v. Louisiana 2016 made mandatory life without parole sentences retroactive resulting in past juvenile cases looked into.

Over the years the decision on what is constitutional when dealing with juveniles has changed. Currently, sentencing a juvenile to death in prohibited along with mandatory life without parole sentences. I agree with the court rulings. Children are not fully developed and should be given the opportunity to be rehabilitated. I personally do not believe juveniles should be sentenced to life without parole. I think after the minimum sentence for the crime, the individual should be assessed to determine if parole is an option. Not all individuals would be granted parole but those who have lived out the minimum time allotted should be re-reviewed. I do believe the change in juvenile sentencing is a result in evolving standard of decency. I think as time goes trends change and what was acceptable 40 years ago may not be acceptable today. The thought of sentencing a 16 year old to death seems cruel and unusual to me but 40 years ago that was considered constitutional.

Merlo, A. V., & Benekos, P. (2018). Juvenile Justice System, The (9th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134813295

DISCUSSION POST 2:

The debate over severity of sentences for juveniles is complex and unique. An article by the American Bar Association reports "Sixty-nine percent of United States adults oppose the death penalty for juveniles. Recent studies have shown that the parts of the brain that govern judgment, reasoning, and impulse control are not fully developed until the early twenties." (American Bar Association, 2004) However, the text reports that some juveniles have reached a level of maturity that adults will never reach. (Merlo & Benekos, 2018) Because of the uniqueness of individuals, I believe it is difficult to determine a "perfect" standard that encompasses the appropriate level of justice is administered in each case. I believe that the death penalty should be allowed for juveniles especially in instances of mass homicide such as school shootings but I believe it should be used very sparingly. I believe limiting life without parole sentence to only homicide cases does a disservice to the community and society. I feel a more appropriate guideline would be to allow the sentence of life without parole for any felony that if the offender was an adult they would also be eligible for life without parole as a sentence. However, the uniqueness of juvenile offenders makes mandatory minimum sentences unjust. Violent premeditated crimes show the maturity and reasoning of the offender which supports the belief that they have matured to the level of understanding their decision and rationalizing the choice rather than an impulsive peer-pressured decision. This level of maturity and planning is seen in Roper v. Simmons (2005). The offender carefully laid out a plan, recruited others, and carried out the plan of a violent heinous murder.

I do believe the term "evolving standard of decency" is an effective and accurate description of the decision made by the US Supreme Court. Standards of human rights have evolved as we have evolved as a civilization. In the not so distant past it was socially acceptable to publicly hang people or sentence people to hard labor. The decisions of the court represent the beliefs of society as a whole.

Merlo, A. V., & Benekos, P. (2018). Juvenile Justice System, The (9th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134813295

American Bar Association. (2004). Factsheet: The juvenile death penalty. Factsheet: The Juvenile Death Penalty | Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/factsheet-juvenile-death-penalty#:~:text=Sixty%2Dnine%20percent%20of%20United,developed%20until%20the%20early%20twenties.

DISCUSSION POST 3:

If I had to provide training for law enforcement, I would start with educating the recruits on local gangs and how to spot them out. There are a plethora of different gangs and not all of them are notorious. Gangs also have subcultures who can identify under different names or colors so I would want my team to be on point when working with them. I choose this as my first segment because children are more susceptible to fall victim to joining a gang because they want to feel included and protected, when longing for that feeling of love, you can be easily coerced into doing things you otherwise wouldn't do. Next, I would educate the recruits on how to assess high tension situations in the streets, so they are socially aware of themselves and others, in order to create peace in hostile situations.

Merlo, Alida, V. and Peter Benekos. Juvenile Justice System, The. Available from: Columbia College, (9th Edition). Pearson Education (US), 2018.

DISCUSSION POST 4:

Providing law enforcement officers with the necessary skills to effectively use discretion is vital for community policing. The mutual respect law enforcements have with the community they serve is crucial for the success of everyone involved. It is even more so true when dealing with juveniles. Law enforcement officers deal with a vast majority of people but people only deal with a few officers. The limited interactions the public has with law enforcement means one bad encounter can change that person and their social circle's view on law enforcement, discretion is another way to build that relationship and with juveniles that can leave a long lasting impression for years to come."Discretion in and of itself is not a bad thing, but the misuse of it has caused society to take a dim view of police who abuse their powers." (Vitek, 2002)

The vital elements of police discretion training must include bias training and legal training. "Beyond the formal training police officers receive from law enforcement agency training academies, police discretion is influenced by many other factors, including the situation as well as the race, ethnicity, gender, SES, and age of those confronted. This indicates that both legal and extralegal factors are considered when police exercise their authority to selectively enforce the law." (Merlo & Benekos, 2018) The training would also include training to help law enforcement officers evaluate the totality of the circumstances. For example, a juvenile is caught stealing a food item from a local convenient store. You issue a referral, take the child to juvenile detention, or explain the consequences of their choices and take them to their family to offer the family social services in your area to help manage their needs. No option is wrong but each option has consequences; issuing the referral can enter the child into the juvenile justice system where their situation can be managed in the juvenile office and services can be offered there, taking the child to juvenile detention can scare them and give them a long lasting negative image of law enforcement, and taking them home and providing the family with social services can give the juvenile the idea that they were able to "beat" the law and they will continue delinquent behavior. Every situation is unique and must be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Merlo, A. V., & Benekos, P. (2018). Juvenile Justice System, The (9th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134813295

Vitek, J. (2002). Police discretion and the use of Force. International Association of Chiefs of Police. https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/p-r/Police_Discretion_and_Use_of_Force.pdf

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Answer The discussions provided above offer valuable insights into the evolution of juvenile justice policies and the training needs of law enforcement officers Heres a summary and analysis of the key ... View the full answer