The cases of Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Arkansas (2012).

Answer

The cases of Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Arkansas and the utilitarian point of ethical treatment of condemned killers

The cases of Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Arkansas were cases under the U.S. Supreme Court in which it upheld the idea that sentencing juveniles for life without parole was unconstitutional (Kinell, 2013). In each of the cases, both Miller and Jackson who were 14 years of age, were found guilty of murder and were sentenced to life imprisonment without being given the possibility of parole (Moriearty, 2014). Miller is said to have killed when stealing from his neighbor while Jackson was charged as an adult and sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole even though it is said he was not the one who shoot the store clerk. While the former case addresses the utilitarian view of ethical treatment based on acting as a deterrent to future possible criminals, the latter case does not (Cohen, & Casey, 2014). This is because it unjustly implicates Jackson the juvenile who was not directly involved in the killing act into condemnation and life imprisonment, which is against the utilitarian view and the ethical treatment of condemned people

 Furthermore, the idea of sentencing Jackson to life imprisonment does not promote happiness and well-being of the society as the utilitarian view of ethical treatment would prefer (De Lazari-Radek, & Singer, 2017). In the same breath, the idea of denying him a possibility for parole violates his constitutional rights, denies him justice, and violates the 18^th and 14^th Amendments’ of the constitution for sentencing juveniles (Lerner, 2012). When criminals are sentenced to life imprisonment, it means they cannot engage in further crimes, which is advantageous to society. However, due process must be followed to the latter, and the right criminals should be implicated (Boone, 2014).

Peacemaking and Deontological Philosophy in the Situation of Capital Punishment for Teenagers

Peacemaking philosophy refers to a perspective on crime premised under the maxim that violence begets violence hence alternative strategies should be employed to bring about peaceful remedies to crime (Pranis, 2015). The proponents of this realm of thought argue that policies of criminal justice incorporate state-sanctioned viciousness that brings about violence vis-à-vis its suppression (Klenowski, 2009). Moreover, peacemaking philosophy advocates for values such as love, empathy, compassion among others to be the key remedies to violence, crime, and suffering. It additionally promotes personal transformation as a crucial step that promotes peacemaking policies and strategies that mitigate crime or violence in the society and restores justice (Braswell et al., 2019). It promotes does not promote capital punishment for juveniles due to their presumed irresponsibility and immaturity; it further believes in offering alternatives that can justify the same (Bernard, Kurlychek, & Kurlychek, 2010).  The juveniles who therefore commit serious crimes should be considered with the benevolent attitude that the community shows to them in general vis-à-vis adults who should be treated differently.

The deontological philosophy on the other hand puts more emphasis on the relationship between the morality of human action and duty; it advocates for the philosophy of doing duty for duty's sake (Ellis, 2020). The proponents of the philosophy, including Kant, believe that the morality of an action should not be judged by its consequences instead by the universal laws, standards, and set rules that advocate for doing what is right because it is right and avoidance of doing what is wrong because it is so (Paquette, Sommerfeldt, & Kent, 2015).  This means deontological philosophy does not whatsoever believe that the end justifies the means, and hence does not advocate for capital punishment nor life imprisonment for both juveniles and adults (Mangan, 2015). This is because it believes that such acts are wrong by their nature, and they violate the rights of the victims for life, and their incarceration violates the right to liberty respectively.

Cases of Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Arkansas under the Utilitarian or Deontological Philosophies

From the presentation of the two cases, the case of Jackson should have been handled differently under the utilitarian philosophy. Utilitarian philosophy holds that the wrongness or rightness of an action is justified by the happiness it brings to the greatest number of people in society (Crimmins, 2011). Sentencing Jackson to life imprisonment without parole, therefore, should have deterred more potential victims and Jackson himself if they thought he was going to commit the crime again. But, from the other side of the coin, the court should have been considerate of his age and his constitutional legal rights and follow due process to the latter (Stefan, 2015). Notably, it could have handled the case differently, for example, by taking him for rehabilitation or gone further to find his background and issues that may have contributed to such behavior. This could have resonated with the deontological philosophy which does not advocate for life imprisonment (Malkani, 2016). 

On the other hand, the case of Muller should also have been handled differently under the deontological philosophy; the due process should have been followed and the violation of the set standards and rules should have been explored before sentencing him for life imprisonment (Stefan, 2015). Muller should have been treated as a minor and sent to juvenile court for sentencing. Furthermore, he should have been punished and given a chance to change over a new leaf; he should not have been used as a means to an end. Deontological philosophy is against the idea of using man as a means because he is an end in himself (Malkani, 2016); it does not also consider life imprisonment or capital punishment as a viable remedy of crime control hence is a wastage of resources. 

Ethical dilemmas when Minors are Tried as an Adult

Any judge who determines whether a 16-year-old who is found guilty of a violent crime should be tried as an adult faces various dilemmas. The first dilemma is what such decision would have on the victim’s psychological life, and other young potential minors (Redding, 2016). Being tried as an adult comes with different effects to the minor, for example, it gives him trauma which can cause numerous emotional disorders (Siegel, & Welsh, 2016). Adult courts do not consider maturity, age, and have limited rehabilitation opportunities. Thus, the dilemma here is whether the judge should choose to administer rehabilitation to the minor or choose to punish him or her for the crime committed (Mikkelson, 2016).

 In the same breath, trying a minor as an adult brings the dilemma of administering charges and penalties to the minor as an adult and offers him/her an adult criminal record which will have future eventualities and face life imprisonment without parole (Pollock, 2019). Further, it inhibits growth and their ability to learn from the mistakes, thereby denying them a future to change and become better persons (Siegel, & Welsh, 2016). However, a judge can reach an ethical decision based on the minor’s previous record; if the minor was previously charged and given parole or taken for rehabilitation and decided to commit a more serious offense than anticipated (Redding, 2016).