Retracted Article One: Juvenile offenders and the death penalty in the United States

Neil, Benjamin A., and Neil, Brian A. (2012) "Juvenile Offenders and the Death Penalty in the United States" Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies 6: 1-10. [This article has been retracted by the journal]

Link to original article: http://web.archive.org/web/20120511120021/http://aabri.com/manuscripts/11946.pdf 

The first column shows text from the Neil & Neil article. The second column shows wording from earlier published authors.

Neil and Neil, page 2	Child Welfare League of America (2002), Juvenile Offenders and the Death Penalty
A juvenile justice system separate from the adult criminal justice system was established in the United States in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899. The goal, envisioned by Jane Addams, was to divert young offenders from the destructive punishments of the criminal courts and encourage rehabilitation based on the individuals needs. Victor L. Strieb, The Juvenile Death Penalty Today: Death Sentences and Executions for Juvenile Crimes, January 1, 1973 – December 31, 2001, 2002. This effort recognized that children are different than adults in terms of cognitive development, impulse and emotional control, and judgment capability. The first juvenile court led to a system that held juveniles accountable for delinquent behavior while providing developmentally appropriate rehabilitation and deterrence programs.	A juvenile justice system separate from the adult criminal justice system was established in the United States in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899. The goal, envisioned by Jane Addams, was to divert young offenders from the destructive punishments of criminal courts and encourage rehabilitation based on the individual's needs (Streib, 2002). This effort recognized that children are different than adults in terms of cognitive development, impulse and emotional control, and judgment capability. The first juvenile court led to a system that held juveniles accountable for delinquent behavior while providing developmentally appropriate rehabilitation and deterrence programs.
Neil and Neil, page 2	Child Welfare League of America (2002), Juvenile Offenders and the Death Penalty
In 1999, at the age of 11, Michigan’s Nathaniel Abraham was charged with murder. He became the youngest child in American history to be prosecuted as an adult. The movement toward trying juvenile cases in adult criminal courts has occurred despite the number of juvenile arrests declining in every violent crime category from 1993 to 1999. During this period, the juvenile population grew 8%. John A. Tuell, Child Welfare League of America, Child Maltreatment and Juvenile Delinquency: Raising the Level of Awareness, 2002.	In 1999, at age 11, Michigan's Nathaniel Abraham was charged with murder. He became the youngest child in American history to be prosecuted as an adult. The movement toward trying juvenile cases in adult criminal court has occurred despite the number of juvenile arrests declining in every violent crime category from 1993 to 1999. During this period, the juvenile population grew by 8% (Tuell, 2002).
Neil and Neil, page 2	Child Welfare League of America (2002), Juvenile Offenders and the Death Penalty
The United States leads the world in state-sanctioned juvenile executions. This indicates a shift away from the historical purposes of the separate juvenile justice system. Focusing primarily on the seriousness of the crime, without meaningful examination of the juvenile’s age as a mitigating factor, is contrary to the research-supported understanding that adolescence is a transitional period, when cognitive abilities, emotions, judgment, impulse control, identity, and the brain are still developing, and are developing in the context of families, kinship systems, and communities.	The United States leads the world in state-sanctioned juvenile executions. This indicates a shift away from the historical purposes of the separate juvenile justice system. Focusing primarily on the seriousness of the crime, without meaningful examination of the juvenile's age as a mitigating factor, is contrary to the research-supported understanding that adolescence is a transitional period, when cognitive abilities, emotions, judgment, impulse control, identity, and the brain are still developing, and are developing in the context of families, kinship systems, and communities.
Neil and Neil, page 2	Child Welfare League of America (2002), Juvenile Offenders and the Death Penalty
… Between 1973 and 2001, courts imposed 213 juvenile death sentences. Of those, 209 involved male offenders and 4 cases involved female offenders of which 18 (14%) resulted in execution. Victor L. Strieb, The Juvenile Death Penalty Today: Death Sentences and Executions for Juvenile Crimes, January 1, 1973 – December 31, 2001, 2002.	Between 1973 and 2001, courts imposed 213 juvenile death sentences, which is less than 3% of the 6,900 capital punishment sentences imposed in the United States during this era. An estimated two-thirds of the juvenile death sentences since 1973 have been imposed on 17-year-olds. One-third have been imposed on 15- and 16-year-olds (Cothern, 2000). There have been 209 juvenile death sentence cases involving males and 4 cases involving female offenders. Although 81 of these sentences are currently being litigated, 132 sentences have been finalized, with 18 (14%) resulting in execution and 114 (86%) being reversed or commuted to life imprisonment (Streib, 2002).
Neil and Neil, page 4	Wikipedia, Roper v. Simmons:
Under the "evolving standards of decency" test, the Supreme Court held that it was therefore cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the murder. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy cited research that found that juveniles have a lack of maturity and sense of responsibility when compared to that of adults.	Under the "evolving standards of decency" test, the Court held that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the murder. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy cited a body of sociological and scientific research that found that juveniles have a lack of maturity and sense of responsibility compared to adults.
Neil and Neil, page 5	Natalie Pifer, Is Life the Same as Death?: Implications of Graham v. Florida, Roper v. Simmons, and Atkins v. Virginia on Life without Parole Sentences for Juvenile and Mentally Retarded Offenders, 43 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1495 (2010).Available at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol43/iss4/9 [see page 1498]
In the wake of Atkins and Roper, life without parole sentences for have replaced executions for juvenile and mentally retarded offenders, but this substitution is not without constitutional difficulties and challenges. Note footnote 13 is to Barry C. Feld, A Slower Form of Death: Implications of Roper v. Simmons for Juveniles Sentenced to Life Without Parole,22 NOTRE DAME J.L. ETHICS & PUB. POL'Y 9, 10 (2008).	In the wake of Atkins and Roper, life without parole sentences have replaced executions for juvenile and mentally retarded offenders, but this substitution is not without constitutional difficulties and challenges.[13] Note footnote 13 is to Barry C. Feld, A Slower Form of Death: Implications of Roper v. Simmons for Juveniles Sentenced to Life Without Parole,22 NOTRE DAME J.L. ETHICS & PUB. POL'Y 9, 10 (2008).
Neil and Neil, page 7	Ending one rodeo of a term by Michael Kirkland, July 4, 2010.
Thirty- seven states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government permitted sentences of life without parole for a juvenile non-homicide offender in some circumstances.	Thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia and the federal government permitted sentences of life without parole for a juvenile non-homicide offender in some circumstances, Kennedy said.