NCJ Number
136540
Journal
Journal of Juvenile Law Volume: 11 Issue: 1 Dated: (1990) Pages: 78-81
Date Published
1990
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Culpability and mitigating factors, as evidenced in U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Eddings v. Oklahoma and Enmund v. Florida, have long been the hallmark for juvenile death penalty analysis.
Abstract
In 1977, Eddings ran away from his Missouri home at age 16 with several of his friends. After arriving in Oklahoma and being stopped by a highway patrol officer, Eddings shot and killed the officer without provocation and for no apparent reason. The State of Oklahoma was granted a fitness motion and was allowed to try Eddings as an adult. During trial, evidence was presented that showed Eddings to be an emotionally disturbed youth who had a very troubled childhood. Nonetheless, Oklahoma courts refused to weigh mitigating factors in imposing the death sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, ruled that State courts must consider all relevant mitigating evidence and weigh it against the evidence of the aggravating circumstances. In the Enmund v. Florida case, a 16-year-old convicted of complicity in the murder of two elderly people was sentenced to death. Enmund argued that because he did not kill or attempt to kill and because he had no intent to kill, the death penalty was disproportionate to the crime. The U.S. Supreme Court stressed that Enmund's criminal culpability must be limited to his actual participation in the crime and that his punishment must be tailored to his personal responsibility and moral guilt. 18 footnotes