How can age be a determining factor for receiving the death penalty?

This piece argues that the death penalty discriminates on the basis of age by relying on an arbitrary legal threshold that ignores neuroscience and the evidence of continued developmental immaturity beyond 18, resulting in the unjust execution of young adults.

Introduction

The death penalty raises serious human rights concerns, particularly in relation to age-based discrimination. Article 6(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, prohibits the “execution of individuals for crimes committed under the age of eighteen” , a restriction justified by reduced maturity and culpability. However, developments in neuroscience challenge the assumption that maturity is reached at 18, demonstrating that brain regions responsible for impulse control and judgment continue to develop into the 20s. This essay argues that by relying on a rigid age threshold despite this evidence, jurisdictions that employ the death penalty discriminate on the basis of age by exposing developmentally immature young adults to capital punishment.

Cases of Juvenile Execution

Historically, age has not always worked as a significant barrier to execution. In early legal systems, children were often seen as miniature adults with a restricted acknowledgment of developmental immaturity. A noteworthy example is the case of John Dean, who was hung in England in 1629 at the age of 8 or 9. He was accused of setting fire to two houses or barns in Windsor.

Despite his young age, the judge presiding over the case stated there was evidence of “malice, revenge, craft and cunning”, thereby justifying his execution. Adding to the horror of the case, there are some sources that suggest that he may have been the last person in the area to be gibbeted, having his body displayed in a cage. Despite this case predating modern human rights law, it amplifies the historical willingness of the law to equate culpability with perceived moral awareness rather than developmental capacity.

Other more recent examples demonstrate that juvenile execution has persisted into the modern era. In the Amnesty international article titled “Juveniles and the Death Penalty”, Chidiebore Onuoha from Nigeria, was executed in 1997 for an armed robbery for which he was 15 years old at the time of execution. Alongside this, Shamun Masih from Pakistan was executed in Hyderabad for an armed robbery and triple murder committed in 1988 when he was just 14. In Iran alone, it is estimated that around 73 youth offenders were sentenced to death between 2005 and 2015, once again as reported by Amnesty International.

These cases reveal that in jurisdictions that utilise the death penalty, age qualifications have continuously been circumvented despite evolution in society pertaining maturity. The significance of age in capital punishment is probably most starkly exemplified by the case of George Stinney Jr in the United States. At the age of 14, Stinney was convicted of the murder of two young girls following a two hour trial and just ten minutes of deliberation by an all white jury. He was executed via electrocution, becoming the youngest person to ever be executed in the United States. Stinney’s family and civil rights activists maintained his innocence and it took until 2014 for him to be exonerated. The judge, according to the Equal Justice Initiative, found that Stinney was “fundamentally deprived of due process throughout the proceedings against him” and the supposed confession that was used as evidence, “simply cannot be said to be known and voluntary”. The judge’s final remarks stated “I can think of no greater injustice”. While race undeniably played a role in Stinney’s treatment, his age was central to the courts recognition of injustice. The case accentuated how youth increases vulnerability to coercion, procedural inequality and misjudgments of culpability, such factors are directly relevant to the legitimacy of capital punishment.

Evolution in Neuroscience

As stated by the National Library of Medicine , longitudinal neuro imaging studies have highlighted that the adolescent brain continues to mature significantly during our 20s. In particular, the frontal lobe which is “home to key components of the neural circuitry” dictates behaviour and actions such as “planning, [the] working memory, and impulse control”. However, it is one of the “last areas of the brain to mature” and it “may not be fully developed until halfway through the third decade of life”. As this region plays a crucial role in regulating behaviour, individuals in the liminal stage of late adolescence and early adulthood may possess a diminished capacity to self-regulate when compared to a fully mature adult.

Such evidence undermines the legal reliance on age as a determinant of culpability. If the exclusion of those under 18 from the death penalty is justified by reduced impulse control and judgment, it is difficult to justify the execution of an 18 or 19 year old whose neurological development only differs marginally. The resulting discrimination lies not in the protection of juveniles but in the under-inclusive nature of this protection.

Opponents to Reform

Despite these advancements in neuroscience, jurisdictions that retain the death penalty have been reluctant to extend the age qualification, often invoking the line-drawing problem. Because maturity does not emerge at a necessarily precise age, critics argue that raising the threshold from 18 risks arbitrariness and could excuse further extensions. However, this objection neglects the fact that the law routinely engages in line-drawing where fundamental rights are threatened and the presence of some arbitrariness may not absolve jurisdictions of their discriminatory policies.

Political considerations may further explain this resistance. Public fear of violent crime and the desire to appear “tough on crime” often incentivise policymakers to maintain harsh sentencing patterns. Yet within a human rights perspective, policymakers expediency cannot justify discriminatory punishment. The continued execution of young adults therefore reflects an adherence to historical norms rather than following in line with current developments in scientific knowledge.

Conclusion

Although international law prohibits the execution of individuals for crimes committed by those under eighteen, the death penalty continues to discriminate on the basis of age. By relying on a rigid age qualification, legal systems fail to account for scientific evidence demonstrating that neurological and psychological maturity extends into early adulthood. This results in the unequal treatment of developmentally comparable individuals, exposing young adults to capital punishment despite their reduced culpability. Resistance to reform, often justified by concerns over arbitrariness or political utility, lacks sufficient grounding within a human rights perspective. Without aligning legal standards with contemporary scientific understanding, age-based qualifications in capital punishment add to the unjustifiable and discriminatory nature of the death penalty.

Written by Alisha Riaz