Eller 1

Thomas Eller Jr

Professor Jami Anderson

PHL 173

12 June 2017

I'm Only 17

In the case Stanford Vs. Kentucky it was proclaimed that being 17 years of age was a just

age to be executed. After reading it does seem like it was in the best interest for Stanford to be

charged as an adult. The reason given in the reading was that the juvenile court said that it was in

the best interest of "the petitioner and the community". To me it seems that Stanford could have

lived a fulfilling life had temptation not taken control. Apparently cigarettes, fuel and a

minuscule amount of cash was worth being sentenced to death.

The court gave many reasons why it thought allowing a 17 year old to be sentenced to

death was acceptable.These reasons included:

The juvenile system did not make a mistake recommending he be tried as an adult, there

was no program for him in the juvenile justice system they thought would work, and that his age

was only an issue that the jury had the right to decided if death was appropriate or not. I do agree

that once the trial was sent to trial the jury ultimately had control over Stanford's fait. At that

point in my view a judge could not or at last should not intervene when a jury makes a decision

based on evidence and testimonies.

In this class I go feel that a few of the types of punishments correlate to this case. Some

might argue that rehabilitation would have been better the Stanford than to be sentenced to death.

The court did argue that the juvenile justice system felt that they did not think there was a
 Eller 2
rehabilitation program suitable for Stanford. Retributivism on the other hand I feel kind of was

what transpired. This case I feel represents an example of retibutivism based on its sole

definition. The punishment must have been appropriately aligned with the crime committed.

In this case the crime was committing murder and other horrid acts so to be sentenced to

death it shows that the punishment was equally distributed. I do believe that this case raises some

questions about having moral considerations to other people. There was no reason that Stanford

and his accomplice had to kill and sodomize the gas station attendant. Stanford even said that

they could have just tied her up and beat her and threatened to kill her. It is evident to me that

Stanford does not have the moral considerations of others on his mind, especially during the

slaughtering of an innocent woman.

I side with the court in this case. After having been to juvenile facilities many times in the

past Stanford was not behaving like a better citizen or human being. Due to those failed

experiences, there really would have been no use for him to be spared and sent to another

rehabilitation program. Maybe a deterrence program focused on deterring behaviors might have

been more suited for Stanford? The world will never know because he committed a crime that

cost him his freedom and his life. I do not think there was anything the court could have

discussed or thought over that would have changed the outcome. The crimes Stanford took part

in were very harsh and unwarranted.

All in all, the court got this decision right and even though there probably many people

who disagree. I am sure there are some who think the punishment was unfit for a 17 year old. I

wholeheartedly believe that it was right and anything less would have been an atrocity towards

citizens everywhere.