By Courtney Miskell, WSU Vancouver Neuroscience student
“as any parent knows and as the scientific and sociological studies… tend to confirm, ‘[a] lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults” - Justice Anthony Kennedy
Crimes committed by juveniles have been in discussion at elevated levels of the Supreme Court debating the sentencing timelines and terms of juveniles, opportunities for parole, and mixed feeling as to whether the still developing individual should be tried as an adult for their crimes. The United States presently has roughly 2,500 individuals serving sentences for crimes that were committed as juveniles, or before their 18th birthday.
We consider the case for 14-year-old Evan Miller who under the influence of drugs and alcohol along with his friend got into a fight with his neighbor and, battered him with a baseball bat and set fire to the victim’s home before fleeing the scene. The victim died from the fire, and as a result Miller was sentenced to life in prison with no parole.
In the opinion of many, juveniles should be tried as an adult under similar circumstances in the court of law. But to modern researchers and neuroscientists, the developing brain may play into the reason why crimes may be committed by juveniles and thus, why sentencing should be done differently than for adults.
Bea Luna studies adolescent brain development at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania and provided neuroscience studies on adolescent behavior and impulse control to facilitate consideration and discussion in criminal trials of juvenile delinquents. The takeaway?
- The brain systems associated with impulse control, resisting immediate rewards and emotional processing, continue to develop for an individual into their mid 20’s – consequently these areas are correlated to criminal activity. Additionally, the regions associated with reward processing appear to mature more before areas involved in decision-making and impulse control.
- Substantial established social research indicates that teenagers are more likely to take greater risks influenced by peer pressure and in emotionally charged situations, making them behave less rationally than adults.
- Social science shows high potential for teen criminals to reform and the inability for life sentencing to deter crime in this group.
Inarguably, crime has irreparable impacts on the lives and futures of the victims and their families. Neuroscience does not serve as an excuse for criminal behavior but serves to inform the law in juvenile criminal proceedings. Additionally, the advancement of technology and neuroscience research may call for better understanding how punishment should be imposed, length of sentence and to consider the repercussions and effectiveness of said punishment on the developing juvenile brain.