tudents are shooting up schools across the country. Kids as young as twelve and thirteen are being convicted of murdering their peers. Right here in Hanover, two teens have been charged with the murders of Dartmouth professors. Although juvenile crime across the country may not be on the rise, high publicity, headline-grabbing juvenile-perpetrated homicides certainly are.

Prosecutors, attempting to satiate public demand for “justice,” have begun trying these juvenile offenders in adult courts and sending them to adult prison. But is it really fair to send children into a penal system like ours, which ignores rehabilitation and is almost exclusively focused upon retribution? Is it right to essentially give up on these children at such a young age? Is this aggressive prosecution tactic in the best interest of the juvenile defendant or the community as a whole? No.

Most studies and statistics suggest that sending juveniles to adult prisons increases recidivism rates among those teens transferred. Jeffrey Fagan, who spearheaded an extensive study of juvenile offenders in New Jersey and New York, reported that not only are children sentenced as adults more likely to commit further crimes, they are more likely to be sexually assaulted while in prison, more likely to be beaten by guards, and more likely to be attacked with a weapon by fellow prisoners. This type of abuse decreases the chances for being rehabilitated, thus making those youths more dangerous to the community if and when they leave the system.

Statistics aside, sentencing a juvenile to adult time is hypocritical and morally objectionable. Recently, Lionel Tate, a 14-year-old Florida teen, was sentenced as an adult to life in prison for a murder he committed when he was 12 years old. Tate, in the eyes of the law, did not have the capacity to vote, to purchase adult products such as cigarettes and alcohol, or even to watch a PG-13 movie alone. Yet that same law claims that Tate had the capacity to fully understand the repercussions of his actions. If Tate had been convicted of shoplifting or another petty crime, prosecutors would have laughed at any suggestion of treating him as an adult. Does the nature of the crime itself, then, dictate the evaluation of a juvenile’s mental capacity? Such aggressive and misguided prosecutions are in direct response to public anger toward the defendant, not necessarily motivated by what is in the best interests of justice. The inconsistency and hypocrisy in the treatment of juvenile offenders is unacceptable.

If treating violent juvenile offenders as adults is ineffective and morally objectionable, what can be done to curb this disturbing trend of high-profile juvenile crimes? Two approaches must be aggressively undertaken if any progress is to be made: the establishment of both a significant pre-teen violence prevention program in schools, and the establishment of a more sophisticated and better-funded juvenile detention system.

Were the government to invest significant funds to increase violence prevention programs that target young children, violent juvenile crime could be deterred. The Rand Corporation recently completed a study on early crime prevention programs. This study, hailed by the ACLU as “the most comprehensive study done in this area,” concluded that for every one million dollars spent on the prison system, only about 60 crimes a year could be prevented. The study also concluded that early intervention programs could prevent as many as 250 crimes for every one million dollars spent. Thus, although the benefits of such a system might not be fully realized for 30 or 40 years, the federal government must invest in research to create such programs and in the programs themselves. Every public, private, and parochial school in the United States should adopt an intense, effective, well-thought-out violence prevention program that not only targets troubled kids, but also educates all children against violence.

More money must also be spent to reform juvenile detention practices. Because of the young ages of the inmates, rehabilitation in the juvenile system is much more likely than rehabilitation in the adult system. In order for a juvenile to be rehabilitated, that prisoner must have the desire to succeed, as well as the means to legitimately achieve that success. Thus, a strong education system should be put in place within the juvenile detention to provide both the motivation and the means. Investing money to attract strong teachers and counselors and to fund necessary facilities would give juvenile inmates the option of making something of themselves outside of the world of crime and violence.

The American community has failed many of its children. Young adolescents are products of their environment, and that environment must take some responsibility for these children’s actions. Responsibility must be instilled on these kids, and punishment must be administered, but dooming children to hard time is hardly justice. When kids perpetrate violence they must be punished, but these kids also deserve a second chance, and this country has the means to support that second chance. No 12-year-old should spend the rest of his or her life in jail; no 13-year-old should spend time in an adult prison; and no 14-year-old should be denied a reasonable chance to turn his or her life around. This country must strive for something better.

The Council of Europe declares, "The death penalty can no longer be regarded as an acceptable form of punishment from a human rights perspective. It is an arbitrary, discriminatory and irreversible sanction when judicial errors, which can never be entirely ruled out, cannot be reversed."

In fact, the Council went so far as to create a Protocol No. 6 in ’83, which abolished capital punishment in peacetime. All new member states must ratify this legislation and, so far, 39 of the 41 member states of the council have done so.

Nonetheless, 17 years after the Council of Europe adopted Protocol No. 6, the United States remains one of the few staunch Western defenders of capital punishment. Both mainstream Presidential candidates in the United States firmly supported the death penalty, and one candidate, George W. Bush, personally signed off on 35 executions in ’99 while governor of Texas. Why has capital punishment, which has been condemned by most Western democracies, continued?

Obviously, Europe and the United States are very different places, but it is surprising to find such a discrepancy between American and European policy and practice concerning the death penalty. Both Europe and the United States have similar standards for human rights. Thus, one would think their positions on the death penalty, as a human rights issue, would be similar, not contradictory.

The Council of Europe named three major reasons for its opposition to capital punishment: it is arbitrary, it is discriminatory, and it is irreversible.

Is capital punishment less arbitrary, discriminatory and irreversible in the United States? No. Capital punishment in the United States is administered in an extremely discriminatory manner. For example, nearly 90% of all inmates executed are executed for killing white people, when 50% of homicide victims are African American.

Even Former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan acknowledged the discriminatory nature of the death penalty in the United States, saying, in ’94, "… the death penalty is imposed. . . in a freakish and discriminatory manner". Yet the Court continues to allow executions.

In addition, administration of the death penalty is no less arbitrary in the United States than it was in Europe. Some convicted murderers get life in prison, while others are executed. Many of the life and death rulings, decided at sentencing, are determined by the capabilities of the defense attorneys, whose competence is usually a direct result of the wealth of the defendant. In other words, wealthy, well-connected murderers are very rarely executed and poor ones often are.

Finally, capital punishment in the United States is obviously no less irreversible than it was in Europe, and the judicial errors being committed in the United States are no less significant. Each year in America an estimated 4.5 innocent people are executed! Former Justice Brennan, in the statement cited earlier, also admitted that innocent people are being killed via capital punishment in the United States today. Very little, if anything, has changed since then. These "flaws" in the imposition of capital punishment, by any standard, European or American, are unacceptable.

The Council of Europe, along with the support of the European people, has virtually abolished capital punishment on that continent. Each of the three major problems cited by the Council as justification for the abolition of capital punishment remain unaddressed in the United States today. Capital punishment is still arbitrary, discriminatory, and irreversible in America. Yet, despite these, and other, compelling reasons to abolish capital punishment, our nation still defends this barbaric, uncivilized and cruel practice.

To many Americans, capital punishment is a quick fix to a national crime problem. We have been willing to overlook the gross injustices of the practice because we have convinced ourselves that it is making America a safer community. Acceptance of this myth must stop. The United States should follow Europe’s lead and acknowledge that the administration of capital punishment in this country is an inherently unfair judicial practice. We must demand a moratorium on the death penalty in America now.