Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Supreme Court and the Culpability of a Child

In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that children under 18 years old cannot be subject to the death penalty for their crimes. The court is now hearing two cases asking whether children should be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole (Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida). The cases raise the difficult question of when children have the maturity to be treated as adults. In exploring this question the court is hearing arguments about the capacity of children to accept responsibility for their actions. This issue is central to the question I raised in my October blog post; when are children old enough to access guns and be taught to use them?

As pointed out in a recent New York Times article "How Old is Old Enough?", there are contradictions embedded in how we have answered this question. When looking at the ages that permit drinking, driving, watching R rated movies, working, voting, serving in the military, renting a car, joining a gym etc. there is little consistency. Is the age determined based on the notion of protecting the child or protecting others from that child? Probably a bit of both.

Why then is the age at which a child can access a gun, be taught to use it and in fact use it to kill small animals, not part of these discussions? Apparently hunting exists in its own political and social bubble. It is treated as off limits to those who don't participate in the sport and are not part of the culture. But these youth hunters are part of our society and may one day live next door, go to school or work, serve in the military or become romantically involved with our children. Opposition to hunting often focuses on animal activist sentiment however, this issue is about the human in the equation not the animal. As a member of society I am more concerned with the use and proliferation of guns than I am with the age a child smokes his first cigarette, sees his first sexy movie or gets his first job.

While the purchase of guns is restricted, their use is much less so. More than half the states in our country currently do not have a minimum age for the use of a gun in the context of hunting. Putting aside one's personal beliefs about the sport, the question remains whether a young child has the mental or emotional wherewithal to handle a loaded gun.

From reading the amicus brief submitted by the American Psychological Association in the current Supreme Court cases, it is evident that the research says juveniles do not have fully developed impulse control nor are they fully able to see the consequences of their actions and choose less risky alternatives. Perhaps these factors help explain why the 8 year old Arizona boy and the 11 year old Pennsylvania boy I discuss in my October blog post committed murder with their hunting rifles and how a 10 year old Florida boy accidentally shot and killed his 15 year old brother while duck hunting. Central to the case of the 11 year old Pennsylvania boy who took his youth model hunting rifle and killed his father's pregnant girlfriend, was the question whether the boy should stand trial as an adult.

Recent neuroscience research also shows that adolescent brains are not yet fully developed leaving children more susceptible to external influences. Young people have not formed their personal identities, they typically are under parental control and lack freedom and autonomy. Perhaps then the issue is also whether it is in the child's best interest to be exposed to guns and killing at a young age. Should this decision be solely up to the parents? The parents most probably enjoy the sport of hunting and want to pass it along to their children. Couldn't this goal be accomplished equally well by taking the children along on hunting trips but not arming them? Or maybe at most, only providing young children with blank ammunition. In the case of a youth hunter gone awry, could there be a cause of action against the parents based on the argument that the parents contributed to the delinquency of a minor? Who benefits from training young children to use guns and kill? Most probably not the child.