Ethics

Adolescent Brains and LWOP

By Adam Kolber

In Roper v. Simmons, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a person cannot be punished with the death penalty if he committed the crime for which he is being punished before the age of 18.  The case has received substantial attention from neuroethicists because the case featured a number of amicus briefs that consisted almost entirely of data about adolescent brains.  The data were intended to support claims that adolescents are far more prone to impulsive decisionmaking than adults (big surprise!).  In the Court's published decision, however, there is little evidence that the neuroscience-based amicus briefs had an impact on the Court.

Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a couple of cases testing whether adolescents can be punished with a sentence of "life without (possibility of) parole" (LWOP).  See here.  It will be interesting to see who files neuroscience-based amicus briefs, how they may have changed since Roper (in terms of substance or strategy), and what impact, if any, such briefs have on the Court.

Full post as published by Neuroethics and Law on May 05, 2009 (boomark / email).