Even though violence may be used, the main point of is for material gaining. The social gang/group is most of the time a permanent group of youths who generally exist in the pact with society. In difference to the common character of a gang/group generated crime self reported studies have revealed that youth crimes is a personal thing. Making young people pay with their lives for a certain crime has a very long history in the U.S. dating back to the 17th century. When a 16 year old boy became the first juvenile sentenced to death in colonial America. Over three centuries later, the Supreme Court established 16 as the very minimum age for an offender to be sentenced to death. Despite the courts recognition of the constitutionality of the practice,
…show more content…
Gary Graham was convicted of a murder committed when he was 17 years old. Under Texas law, he was eligible for the death penalty, although in other states he would have not been eligible. Texas law did allow his age to be offered as a reason for the jury to believe that in the future, Graham would not be a danger to the community and therefore should be sentenced to life in prison. Graham argued in his appeals that some jurors might believe that his age would actually make it more likely that he would have committed further crimes and therefor it served as an "aggravating factor" granting to the likely hood of the death sentence. Under the Texas law, a finding of future danger by the jury typically resulted in a death sentence. Graham, was eventually executed in the year 2000, five years before the U.S supreme court prohibited the execution of juvenile defendants. Despite the fact that Texas's death penalty laws lacked the formal consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors found in other states laws, its statue was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1976(Jurek v. Texas). In later opinion, however, the court held that states could not restrict the defense from putting on any relevant mitigating evidence(Lockett v. Ohio). That prosecutors must consider such evidence in choosing between a life and death sentence (Eddings v. Oklahoma). These decisions led to a partial striking down of Texas's capital punishment statue in 1989. The Supreme court gripped the question of whether a defendant would be be a "future danger" to the community didn't appropriately allow for the consideration of the defendant's mental challenges as a possible mitigating factor( Penny v. Lynaugh). Some jurors might believe that a defendant like Johnny Penny with a low IQ might be more likely to commit future crimes, maybe because he could not learn from his mistakes or be deterred
Gary Graham was convicted of a murder committed when he was 17 years old. Under Texas law, he was eligible for the death penalty, although in other states he would have not been eligible. Texas law did allow his age to be offered as a reason for the jury to believe that in the future, Graham would not be a danger to the community and therefore should be sentenced to life in prison. Graham argued in his appeals that some jurors might believe that his age would actually make it more likely that he would have committed further crimes and therefor it served as an "aggravating factor" granting to the likely hood of the death sentence. Under the Texas law, a finding of future danger by the jury typically resulted in a death sentence. Graham, was eventually executed in the year 2000, five years before the U.S supreme court prohibited the execution of juvenile defendants. Despite the fact that Texas's death penalty laws lacked the formal consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors found in other states laws, its statue was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1976(Jurek v. Texas). In later opinion, however, the court held that states could not restrict the defense from putting on any relevant mitigating evidence(Lockett v. Ohio). That prosecutors must consider such evidence in choosing between a life and death sentence (Eddings v. Oklahoma). These decisions led to a partial striking down of Texas's capital punishment statue in 1989. The Supreme court gripped the question of whether a defendant would be be a "future danger" to the community didn't appropriately allow for the consideration of the defendant's mental challenges as a possible mitigating factor( Penny v. Lynaugh). Some jurors might believe that a defendant like Johnny Penny with a low IQ might be more likely to commit future crimes, maybe because he could not learn from his mistakes or be deterred