Author Type

Undergraduate Student

Date of Award

Spring 5-5-2026

Document Type

Thesis

Publication Status

Version of Record

Submission Date

July 2026

College Granting Degree

Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College

Thesis/Dissertation Advisor [Chair]

Mark Tunick

Abstract

When a minor fatally shoots their classmate, the justice system faces a harrowing question: does this child deserve the same death sentence as an adult murderer? While most instinctively answer ‘no,’ the philosophical ‘why’ remains complex. Juvenile courts were founded on the principle that young offenders are developmentally distinct, possessing limited decision-making capacity and a unique potential for reform. Some argue that punishing juveniles identically to adults harmfully ignores these developmental limits, while others contend that exempting them from adult sanctions disregards the cruelty and intent present in their crimes. Ultimately, however, no philosophical justification for punishment—neither utilitarian nor retributive—justifies treating children as adults. Because youth lack the stable character and moral agency presupposed by the law, subjecting them to adult sanctions is both inefficient and unjust. Juvenile justice must instead prioritize proportional accountability and rehabilitation, recognizing the transitory nature of youth and their capacity for meaningful change.

Download

Share

COinS