Alleged Washington area snipers John Lee Malvo and John Muhammad
may have unwittingly claimed yet another victim: the movement
against juvenile execution.
The archaic practice of putting juveniles to death was falling
out of fashion prior to the shooting spree but has unfortunately
been revitalized following the apprehension of 17-year-old
Malvo.
Death-penalty advocates, seizing the sensational nature of the
killings, have made Malvo the new poster-boy for juvenile
execution. They argue that any juvenile “adult enough”
to help perpetrate the beltway killings is “adult
enough” to face capital punishment. Malvo ““ currently
the most loathed juvenile in America ““ is held up as proof of
this principle.
It is a line of thinking embraced by the U.S. Justice
Department, made evident when it gave first crack at prosecution to
Virginia, a state with a rich history of executing juveniles,
rather than Maryland, a state which forbids adolescent executions.
It is in a Virginia courtroom that Malvo’s status will be
upgraded from juvenile to adult, largely because a segment of
society misinterprets overtly heinous juvenile crime as evidence of
maturity.
Malvo is a callous killer well-past rehabilitation. He deserves
a life behind bars, and probably more ““ but execution is a
step too far. Malvo has a cruel heart but not an adult mind. He was
an impressionable foot-soldier in John Muhammad’s command, a
disciple in crime rather than a partner.
The New York Times reports that Muhammad functioned as
Malvo’s surrogate father, controlling every aspect of
Malvo’s existence, including “”¦what to eat, when
to speak, and investigators believe, how to shoot a gun.”
Sharon Douglas, a receptionist at the Maryland YMCA frequented
by the alleged killers, was quoted by the Times as stating,
“It was like he (Muhammad) was ruling him (Malvo). “¦ If
that man told him to stop breathing, the boy would have stopped
breathing.”
Though Malvo could and should have extricated himself from
Muhammad, his juvenile status only antagonized a dire
situation.
As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has pointed out,
neurological studies confirm that juveniles, when compared with
adults, have a less refined ability to comprehend the ramifications
of their actions. This is not to exculpate adolescent killers, but
rather differentiate their liability with that of adults like John
Muhammad.
It is a distinction our government has been more than willing to
make in matters resting outside of the criminal arena. There is a
good reason individuals under 18 are not allowed to serve on
juries, vote or marry without parental permission ““ they lack
the foresight and maturity of adults. The logic is seldom
questioned.
However, when adolescents commit pernicious crimes, there is an
inexplicable rush to try them as adults, and in many cases pursue
the death penalty. Justice Stevens argues that this pursuit is
“a relic of the past, inconsistent with the evolving
standards of decency in a civilized society.”
And indeed, Stevens is right. The execution of juvenile
offenders is a throwback to a more primitive, less estimable brand
of justice. While teen offenders like Malvo should pay a heavy
price, decency should preclude them from paying the ultimate
price.
Eisner writes every Thursday.