• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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.