Juvenile Death Penalty: Question of the day: Should individuals who 18, 19 and 20, receive the same age-appropriate considerations that juveniles now receive in death penalty cases? The Death Penalty Information Center dies into new report called, Immature Minds in a ​“Maturing Society”: Roper v. Simmons at 20, "…, Key findings of the Report include: Studies of brain devel­op­ment and juve­nile behav­ior show that key fac­tors cit­ed by the Court in Roper (poor impulse con­trol and unnec­es­sary risk-tak­ing) are not only present in ado­les­cence, but also in 18‑, 19‑, and 20-year-olds."

OTHER KEY FINDINGS OF THE DPIC REPORT: "000: New death sen­tences for 18- to 20-year-olds have dimin­ished both in absolute terms and as a per­cent­age of all new death sen­tences over the last twen­ty years. 000: During the past five years, juries have sen­tenced just five such indi­vid­u­als to death. Since the Roper deci­sion, more than three-quar­ters of the death sen­tences giv­en to 18- to 20-year-olds have been imposed on peo­ple of color. 000: SinceRoper, peo­ple of col­or who are 18, 19 or 20are twice as like­ly as white defen­dants in the same age range to be executed."

-------------------------------------------------------

POST: New DPI report examines the legacy of Roper V, Simmons for 18–20 year olds in death penalty cases, published by The Death Penalty Information Center, on

GIST: "In com­mem­o­ra­tion of the 20th anniver­sary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s land­mark deci­sion end­ing the juve­nile death penal­ty, the Death Penalty Information Center (DPI) today released a new report: Immature Minds in a ​“Maturing Society”: Roper v. Simmons at 20, detail­ing grow­ing sup­port that indi­vid­u­als ages 18, 19, and 20 should receive the same age-appro­pri­ate con­sid­er­a­tions that juve­niles now receive in death penalty cases.  In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Supreme Court found a soci­etal con­sen­sus against the exe­cu­tion of juve­niles who com­mit seri­ous crimes, cit­ing the many ways that teenagers under the age of 18 are treat­ed dif­fer­ent­ly in the eyes of the law. The Court was also per­suad­ed by neu­ro­sci­en­tif­ic research that described teenagers’ under­de­vel­oped impulse con­trol, vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty to peer pres­sure, imma­ture char­ac­ter traits, and capac­i­ty for change. DPI’s new report notes that courts and leg­is­la­tures are increas­ing­ly tak­ing notice of this same evi­dence to extend new legal pro­tec­tions to defen­dants ages 18 to 20. Although they remain eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty, much of the ratio­nale and evi­dence the Court applied in Roper also applies to this age group.  Key find­ings of the report include: New death sen­tences for 18- to 20-year-olds have dimin­ished both in absolute terms and as a per­cent­age of all new death sen­tences over the last twen­ty years. During the past five years, juries have sen­tenced just five such indi­vid­u­als to death.  Since the Roper deci­sion, more than three-quar­ters of the death sen­tences giv­en to 18- to 20-year-olds have been imposed on peo­ple of color. Since Roper, peo­ple of col­or who are 18, 19 or 20are twice as like­ly as white defen­dants in the same age range to be executed. Studies of brain devel­op­ment and juve­nile behav­ior show that key fac­tors cit­ed by the Court in Roper (poor impulse con­trol and unnec­es­sary risk-tak­ing) are not only present in ado­les­cence, but also in 18‑, 19‑, and 20-year-olds.  The report also fea­tures mul­ti­ple sto­ries of defen­dants 18- to 20-years-old who have faced the death penal­ty. Among them are the sto­ries of Cleo LeCroy’s evo­lu­tion from impul­sive youth to sta­ble adult; the child­hood trau­ma and abuse suf­fered by Christa Pike; the dire con­se­quences of forced con­fes­sions for Henry McCollum and Leon Brown; the exe­cu­tion of Ramiro Gonzales, who experts agreed posed no threat to soci­ety; and the rad­i­cal­ly dif­fer­ent out­comes among three teenage code­fen­dants only two years apart in age that led to the exe­cu­tion of Carey Dale Grayson." The entire story can be read at: dpi-weekly-updates-2025-17 PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"  section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. SEE BREAKDOWN OF  SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG,  AT THE LINK BELOW:  HL: https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985 ——————————————————————————————— FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices." Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; —————————————————————————————————