The death penalty is one of the most controversial topics explored in society and in the criminal justice system today. There are strong opinions both for and against the death penalty, but when juveniles are involved, it becomes an even more heated debate. Many of the conflicting views come from the moral standings of killing a person so young as well as allowing a person who committed murder, at any age, to be allowed to walk the streets again. The important question to ask is if sentencing a juvenile to death for the crimes they committed is considered unconstitutional?
             Capital punishment is an unconstitutional punishment that cannot be given to juveniles at sentencing. No matter how horrid the act committed by a juvenile is, the Supreme Court has found that there is sufficient evidence that make it inappropriate to sentence a juvenile to death. Their reasoning behind this decision revolves around the Eight Amendment, sentencing a juvenile to death constitutes cruel and unusual, it is a disproportionate punishment to the crime committed and the mitigating or aggravating circumstances show the difference between adults and juveniles, to be very large.
             The Eight Amendment states that, "(no) cruel and unusual punishment inflicted."(Eighth Amendment 1992) The Supreme Court uses this standard as a measuring stick to determine if a punishment imposed upon a person is too extreme. In the case of juveniles, the court has decided imposing death unto a person under the age of 18 is a violation against their rights against cruel and unusual punishment. In the case Roper v. Simmons, the court decided that the sole purpose of the death penalty is to serve as a "retributive as well as a deterrent for capital crimes by perspective offenders"(Roper v. Simmons 2005)
             Using this understanding of the death penalty, they showed that it is effective with adult offenders but is not so in the case involving juveniles. The majo...