Capital Punishment of Minors: A High-Risk Proposition

The death penalty for minors raises significant ethical and risk-related concerns. Forensic risk assessment principles emphasize evaluating not only the future risk to the public posed by an individual, but also the potential for wrongful conviction and the psychological impact on all parties involved.

Risks to Individuals Impacted by the Death Penalty:

• Wrongful Conviction: The possibility of executing an innocent person is a grave injustice. Forensic assessments, while helpful, are not infallible. The risk of basing an irreversible punishment like death on potentially flawed assessments is unconscionable, especially for minors whose brains are still developing.
• Psychological Impact: Capital punishment subjects individuals to prolonged periods of fear and uncertainty, causing immense psychological distress. This is particularly concerning for minors who may not fully grasp the finality of death.
• Closure for Victims’ Families: While some believe capital punishment offers closure for victims’ families, research suggests it can have the opposite effect, prolonging feelings of anger and grief.

Ethical Considerations and Forensic Assessments:

• AP-LS Guidelines: The American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS) emphasizes the importance of competence, impartiality, and scientific rigor in forensic assessments. Capital punishment raises ethical concerns regarding bias, as the psychologist may be pressured to inflate risk assessments to justify the death penalty.
• APA Ethics Code: The APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct uphold the principle of nonmaleficence, which means “do no harm.” Psychologists involved in capital punishment cases must carefully consider the potential for psychological harm to the defendant, victims’ families, and themselves. This may necessitate refusing to participate in assessments that could lead to an execution.

Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime?

Studies on the deterrent effect of the death penalty are inconclusive. There is no clear evidence that it reduces crime rates more effectively than life imprisonment. In fact, some research suggests it may even have the opposite effect, with some criminals potentially seeking to ensure their victims are killed to avoid leaving witnesses. Comparing capital punishment’s effectiveness between states is further complicated by other factors influencing crime rates, such as socioeconomic conditions and law enforcement practices.

Conclusion

The death penalty for minors is a high-risk proposition, posing a significant threat of wrongful conviction and causing immense psychological harm. Forensic risk assessments, while valuable tools, cannot eliminate these risks. Ethical principles enshrined by the AP-LS and APA compel psychologists to carefully consider the potential for injustice and harm before participating in capital punishment cases. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent remains questionable. These factors combined strongly argue against capital punishment for minors.