DANGEROUSNESS AND
THE DEATH PENALTY:
AN EXAMINATION OF JUVENILE
HOMICIDES IN KENTUCKY
GENNARO F. VITO
University of Louisville
THOMAS J. KEIL
Arizona State University West
As in several other states, Kentucky passed legislation to get tough with juveniles and
battle a rising tide of delinquency and violent crime. The necessity of this policy was
unquestioned. This analysis examines national juvenile crime statistics and data on
juvenile homicides in Kentucky. It uses the Barnett scale to examine whether juvenile
s over time. The results of
the study do not support the get tough movement or the continued availability of the
death penalty for juveniles in Kentucky.
murderers were more deliberate, random, or vicious kill
Keywords: dangerousness; juvenile homicide; death penalty; capital
punishment
In recent years, the rise in juvenile crime rates caused a get-tough move-
ment to fundamentally refocus the sanctioning capacities of the juvenile jus-
tice system beyond child saving and rehabilitation to stress deterrence and
incapacitation. Accordingly, policy changes have focused upon trying seri-
ous juvenile offenders as adults, even sentencing juveniles convicted of mur-
der to death. For example, Kentucky legislation was enacted in 1994 to send
juveniles who use a gun to commit felonies to an adult institution.
Are things getting worse? This study explores these questions by analyz-
ing two data sets. The first consists of all homicides reported to Kentucky
police between 1976 and 1997. The pattern of juvenile homicides in Ken-
tucky is compared to those in the entire United States. The second set con-
tains data on all convicted murderers from Kentucky between 1976 and
1991. Here, we use the Barnett scale to determine whether homicides com-
THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 84 No. 4, December 2004 436-451
DOI: 10.1177/0032885504269628
© 2004 Sage Publications
436
Vito, Keil / JUVENILE HOMICIDE — 437
mitted by Kentucky juveniles were more deliberate, random, or vicious than
those committed by adults (Barnett, 1985).
RELATED RESEARCH
THE VIOLENT CRIME RATE AMONG JUVENILES
Statistics indicate that the extent and nature of juvenile crime is changing
dramatically. Juvenile violent index crime arrest trends for the period of 1980
to 1999 indicate six items of note. First, the juvenile arrest rate for all
offenses reached its highest level in the last two decades in 1996 and then
declined 16% by 1999. The overall juvenile arrest rate was still 7% higher in
1999 than in 1980 (OJJDP statistical briefing book, 2000). Second, the juve-
nile violent index crime arrest rate in 1999 was at its lowest level since 1988,
36% below the peak year of 1994. About one third of 1% of the juveniles
aged 10 to 17 were arrested for a violent crime in 1999. In fact, even at the
1994 peak, the proportion of arrests for violent crimes that involved juveniles
(20%) was about the same as it was in 1965 (Laub and Cook, 1998).
The third item of note is that, of all the violent index crime offenses, the
juvenile arrest rate for murder registered both the greatest increase and the
greatest decline between 1980 and 1999. The juvenile arrest rate for murder
more than doubled between 1987 and 1993. However, between 1993 and
1999, it dropped 68% to the lowest level since the 1960s. The peak in homi-
cides by juveniles between 1987 and 1993 was firearm related. Interestingly,
the decline between 1993 and 1998 was also entirely attributable to a drop in
firearm-related homicides committed by juveniles (Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP, 1999). Fourth, the juvenile arrest rate
for forcible rape in 1999 was at its lowest level since 1980. It was 31% below
the peak year of 1991 (OJJDP, 1999). Fifth, the juvenile arrest rate for rob-
bery in 1999 was lower than at any point since at least 1980. Between 1994.
and 1999, it fell dramatically by 53% (OJJDP, 1999). Finally, for aggravated
assault, the juvenile arrest rate in 1999 was 69% above its low point in 1983.
It more than doubled between 1983 and 1994 (OJJDP, 1999). Overall, it
appears that juvenile violent crime had dramatically declined and that the
alarms raised in the early 1990s were unwarranted.
JUVENILE MURDERERS
Several studies reveal the characteristics of juvenile homicide offenders
and also demonstrate that the punitive movement is in error. The findings
438 THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2004
reveal that juveniles who commit murder do not escape punishment. For
example, Eigen (1981) examined a sample of all juveniles arrested for homi-
cide in Philadelphia. He included a sample of adult homicide offenders to
compare sentence severity between the two groups. The juvenile sample
consisted of 154 juveniles who were arrested for 63 separate offenses. These
homicides were determined to be primarily (76%) interracial events. Race
was a factor in juvenile case outcomes. When Black youths killed Whites, the
probability of transfer to adult court almost doubled. In comparison to the
adults, Eigen discovered that juveniles were more likely to kill strangers dur-
ing an armed robbery. Juveniles enjoyed “relatively little leniency” in terms
of the sentence received. Compared to the adults, they had a greater rate of
conviction, were convicted of a higher degree of murder, and received
harsher sentences. In fact, when Black youths killed Whites, they received
the most severe sentences of all (Eigen, 1981).
Profiles of juvenile homicide offenders reveal their common characteris-
tics. For example, Rowley, Ewing, and Singer (1987) examined official data
on juvenile murderers from 1984 and 1985 and discovered that they were
likely to be psychologically disturbed. The majority of homicides committed
by juveniles during a theft involved strangers as victims. Female juvenile
offenders were more likely to kill family members. Similarly, Cornell,
Benedek, and Benedek (1987) compared the criminal and personal histories
of 72 juveniles charged with homicide to those of 35 adults referred to the
Michigan Center for Forensic Psychiatry between 1977 and 1985. The juve-
nile cases were more likely to involve minorities and juvenile offenders were
more likely to have family problems (especially divorce) in their background
and to have a history of extensive personal contact with the victim.
Cornell (1993) examined offense characteristics for a national sample of
2,400 juvenile homicide offenders contained in the FBI Supplemental Homi-
cide Reports for 1984 and 1991. During this period, the number of juveniles
arrested for homicide increased 162%, whereas arrests for adults increased
26%. Among the statistically significant comparisons between adults and
juveniles arrested for murder between 1984 and 1991 reported by Cornell
was that (a) 42% of the juveniles but only 13% of the adults were arrested
along with an accomplice; (b) the proportion of White juvenile offenders
(22%) was smaller than the proportion of White adult offenders (40%); (c)
juvenile offenders were more likely to kill strangers (34%) than were adult
offenders (21%) and were less likely to kill family members (9% vs. 22%);
(d) juveniles were more likely to commit crime-related (48%) homicides
than were adult offenders (26%); and (e) between 1984 and 1991, juvenile
homicides involving handguns increased from 37% to 61%. In 1991, hand-
guns were used more frequently in juvenile homicides than were all other
Vito, Keil/ JUVENILE HOMICIDE 439
weapon categories combined (Cornell, 1993, p. 391). Cornell concludes that
these figures reflect “a greater predisposition to criminal behavior.”
Ina more specific context, Lewis (1988) conducted a psychiatric and neu-
rological study of 14 juvenile offenders on death row. Lewis reported that all
of these inmates had suffered serious head injuries as children, that all but
two were severely beaten or physically abused, and that five had been sexu-
ally abused by relatives. All the juvenile death-row inmates had serious psy-
chiatric problems, and most had brain abnormalities, low IQs, and poor men-
tal health test scores. In addition, alcoholism, drug abuse, and psychiatric
treatment and hospitalization were prevalent in the history of their parents.
Other attributes identified as significant factors in juvenile homicides
include the maturity or the unique state of mind of adolescents. Ogloff (1987)
notes that most juvenile homicides are spontaneous, unpremeditated acts.
Emotional stress, lack of experience, irresponsibility, and volatility typically
play a role in juvenile homicides (Ogloff). These characteristics are even
more pronounced in Streib’s (1987) exhaustive study of 300 juveniles exe-
cuted in the United States. Through the use of the case-study approach,
Streib illustrates that these homicides were characterized by the absence of
calculation and a lack of consideration for the consequences of their actions.
Typically, the murders stemmed from another offense, and then the juvenile
panicked and killed the victim, often in a most brutal and heinous manner.
In sum, these studies question the effectiveness of deterrence to prevent
juvenile homicide. Premeditation is markedly absent. In its place are factors
that can only be affected by attention to treatment and social problems.
JUVENILE HOMICIDE STATISTICS
In addition, current statistics reveal that the 1999 juvenile murder arrest
rate was the lowest in 20 years. Between 1980 and 1999, statistics reveal
that (a) juvenile murder victims were predominantly male (83%) and White
(51%); (b) during the same timeframe, most of the juvenile murderers were
male (93%) and more than half (56%) were Black; (c) male juvenile offend-
ers were most likely to kill someone they know (56%), but 37% killed a
stranger; (d) female juvenile offenders were most likely to kill a family mem-
ber (39%), and 21% of them killed young children; (e) 82% of the juvenile
offenders murdered persons of their own race. This was especially true of
female offenders; and (f) older juvenile offenders were more likely to com-
mit murder with adults (Fox, 1999).
Specifically, our analysis of Supplemental Homicide Report data from
1976 to 1997 in Kentucky (258 juvenile homicides; see Figure 1) reveals that
440 THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2004
Count
°
7 7% 0 & of 8 8 © OF oO OF
Year of Offense
FIGURE 1: Juvenile Homicides in Kentucky, 1976 to 1997
(a) juvenile offenders murdered victims much older than themselves (mean.
victim age = 31; median victim age = 26); (b) juvenile offenders were more
likely to murder members of their own sex (males 82.9%; females 70%); (c)
juvenile offenders were most likely to use a gun to kill their victim (72.1%);
(d) juveniles were most likely to murder friends or acquaintances (53.7%),
but they also had a high percentage of family member victims (30.8%); and
(e) juvenile offenders were most likely to kill members of their own race
(Whites 98.2%; minorities 71.3%).
The numbers of homicides rose from 14 in 1996 to 20 in 1997. The pattern
in Kentucky is uneven, but it is not one of massive increase and danger. In
fact, there was some stability in reported homicides between 1976 and 1997.
The number of juvenile homicides in Kentucky ranged from a high of 22 in
1976 to a low of 2 in 1989. For the entire 21-year period, the average number
of juveniles arrested for murder was 12.3.
KENTUCKY’S YOUTH OFFENDER ACT
Similar to New York, the U.S. Federal Government, and Canada, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky passed get-tough legislation. It was directed
toward waiving juveniles charged with a violent crime to adult court. The
Vito, Keil / JUVENILE HOMICIDE 441
legislation has six major features. First, the term youthful offender refers to
only serious delinquent offenders; otherwise they are referred to as public
offenders. Second, the judge no longer holds discretionary power to refer a
child to adult court. The county attorney makes a motion to waive the youth
over as an adult. A hearing is held to determine whether there is a preponder-
ance of evidence to refer the case to the circuit court. The burden of proof is
on the youth rather than on the state.
Third, for a capital case or a class A (e.g., first degree arson) or B (e.g.,
first degree assault) felony, the youth can be transferred to circuit court at the
age of 14. But the offender must be 16 at the commission of the alleged
offense to be tried as an adult for a capital case. Fourth, for a class C (e.g., sec-
ond degree rape) or D (e.g., theft by unlawful taking over $300) felony, the
juvenile must have had at least two prior separate adjudications as a public
offender for a felony offense and must have had attained the age of 16 at the
alleged commission of the offense. Fifth, no youthful offender shall be sub-
ject to the Persistent Felony Offender Act—Kentucky’s version of a three
strikes law. Finally, the Cabinet of Human Resources is responsible for con-
ducting the presentencing investigation, providing a facility for placement of
youths until the age of 19, lowered from 21 (Kentucky Revised Code, 2000).
In sum, Kentucky’s Youthful Offender Law lowered the age for those who
can be remanded to adult court. The prosecuting attorney, rather than the
judge, petitions to have the youth waived as an adult. Though the concern is
for fair and equitable treatment of juveniles, the court considers the follow-
ing elements of the incident: (a) seriousness of the offense; (b) nature of the
offense; (c) maturity of the child as determined by the environment; (d) prior
record; (e) the best interest of the child and community; (f) the prospect for
the adequate protection of the community; and (g) the likelihood of rehabili-
tation using the resources available in the juvenile justice system.
However, one research question remains: Has this law reduced the seri-
ousness of juvenile violent crime in Kentucky? Have juvenile murderers con-
victed as adults become more predatory since the passage of Kentucky’s
Youthful Offender Law? Have they become more calculating, random, or
heinous than in the past? We examine these questions, focusing upon juve-
nile homicide offenders remanded to adult court in Kentucky between 1976
and 1991.
DATA AND METHOD
Data were collected on all persons who were charged with a murder in
Kentucky between 1976 and 1991 (N = 1,163). The dependent variables in
442 THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2004
the regression analyses were derived from Barnett’s (1985) scale for classify-
ing homicides. Previous studies using the Barnett scale found that it had a
high level of criterion validity. The Barnett scale provides a way to measure
the seriousness of the homicide. If murders committed by juveniles over this
period became more serious, the Barnett scale would demonstrate this fact.
THE BARNETT SCALE
The first dimension of Barnett’s scale measures the deliberateness of the
crime. It has three scale positions, ranging from 0 to 2 (see the appendix). In
the present study, we grouped cases with scores of | and 2 together to con-
trast these cases with those scored 0. The second dimension indicates
whether or not the homicide involved the killing of a stranger. Cases where a
stranger was the victim were scored 1. All other cases were given a score of 0.
The final dimension of the scale measures the heinousness of the homicide. It
also is scored from 0 to 2. We grouped cases with scores of 0 and | together
and compared those with the cases scored 2, which are the most heinous.
We summed the scale scores to form a total measure of seriousness. This
was the dependent variable in the fourth regression. The independent vari-
ables are (a) juvenile, which is scored 1 if the offender is 18 and has been.
bound over to the courts to be tried as an adult; (b) sample, which is scored 1
if the person was charged between 1987 and 1991 and 0 if the person was
charged between 1976 and 1986; and (c) sample by juvenile, which is a prod-
uct term interaction that allows us to examine whether the effect of juvenile
on any of the dependent variables differs across the two samples.
The summaries of univariate and bivariate statistics are contained in
Tables 1 and 2. We present the results for both of the equations that contain
the interaction term and those that do not in Table 3.
RESULTS
In the first analysis, we regressed the first dimension of Barnett’s (1985)
scale of homicide seriousness (the deliberateness of the killing), on sample,
juvenile, and an interaction term representing the joint effect of sample by
juvenile. As shown in Table 3, only sample is significant for the first dimen-
sion of the Barnett scale. Persons charged with a homicide in the second time
period (following the passage of the Youthful Offender Act; 1987-1991) are
more likely than those charged in the first (before passage of the act; 1976-
1986) to have committed a deliberate killing. Given that the coefficient for
juvenile is not statistically significant, there is no evidence that the youths
Vito, Keil/ JUVENILE HOMICIDE 443
TABLE 1: Frequencies—Adult and Juvenile Homicide Offenses
Adults Juveniles
1976 to 1986 1987to 1991 1976to 1986 1987 to 1991
No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
Deliberateness 89 740 9 283 4 30 1 13
Killed a stranger 706 123 218 74 18 16 8 6
Heinousness of murder 549 280 175 117 15 19 9 5
NOTE: N= 1,169.
TABLE 2: Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations
Sample
by Total
Sample Juvenile Juvenile Deliberate Stranger Heinous Barnett
Sample 1.000
Juvenile .014 1.000
Sample by
juvenile 185 532 1.000
Deliberate 116 -.012 006 1.000
Stranger 113 144 .068 -.083 1.000
Heinous .048 .060 -.001 .076 033 1.000
Total Barnett .229 113 .073 .337 432 702 1.000
M .262 041 .012 912 187 360 2.440
SD .440 199 109 284 390 480 .952
being charged as adults are more likely to be deliberate murderers than are
the adults. Moreover, the absence of a significant interaction effect indicates
that the adult or juvenile differences in the proportions of deliberate murder-
ers are constant across the two periods.
In the second analysis, the next dimension of the scale, the killing of a
stranger, was regressed on the same three independent variables. The results
in Table 3 show that sample has a statistically significant, positive effect. The
proportion of murderers who killed a stranger increased over time. Juvenile
also has significant positive effects. Juveniles who were bound over for trial
as adults were more apt to have killed a stranger than were the adults in our
data. Because the interaction term (sample by juvenile) is not statistically
significant, the gap between juvenile and adult killers regarding stranger vic-
tims is constant over time. There has not been a significant shift upward, over
time, in the likelihood that these juveniles would prey on strangers, as com-
‘48 pAepUe}s S}! SeLUN 96'} UBY} Sse] ING Sew ~9"} UY} 112016 40 0} jenbe yUaIDIYe09 B Se}OUGG,,
‘Joule puepuR|S S|! SOU! 96"| UY 19}eaI6 10 O} }enbe yUB!D!1N800 e sa}oUEd,
990° 90" 800" 900° v0" £60" 10" 10" #
000" 000" 120" oso" 000" 000" 000" 000" d
GOLL'€ QOLL GOL € QObL '% GOLL'€ Q9Lb ‘2 SOLE QOL 'e ep
gleze zS2'b9 esze oev'e Blz'el 68°61 Orr's leve J
982% 067% EE sbbe s8bl" 0k" +268" £68" ydeoiequ}
6re- = 499¢- at Lye = oco- - ayuenn{ Aq ajdweg
+929" vee hee abe zee" 1082" og0"- 610-
60S" 86h" £90" }so" SOF 001° +210" S10"
Jepoyy Wu04 fepoyy wuo4 Jepo~y wuoy Jepoyy Wu04
ung paonpay, ming peonpely ung peonpaly ng peonpey
qwouleg [ejoL SnOUIaH Tebuens eei0qe
suonenb3 uolsseiBey :¢ JTGVL
Ad
Vito, Keil/ JUVENILE HOMICIDE 445
pared to adults. The difference between adults and juveniles in the proportion
that killed strangers was the same between 1987 and 1991 as it had been
between 1976 and 1986.
The third dimension of Barnett’s scale considers the heinousness or vile-
ness of the murder. Again, heinousness was regressed on sample, juvenile,
and the interaction term for sample by juvenile. Unlike in the other analyses,
all three predictors had statistically significant effects (see Table 3). Both
sample and juvenile had positive effects on heinousness. In other words,
murders committed between 1987 and 1991 were more vile than those com-
mitted between 1976 and 1986, and juveniles were more likely than adult
offenders to have been charged with a murder that was especially heinous.
The interaction term had a significant, but negative, effect on heinousness.
Therefore, the results run counter to the notion of the emergence of a preda-
tory class of juvenile offenders. Our findings indicate that the differences in
heinousness between juveniles tried as adults and adult defenders are de-
creasing over time rather than increasing. Juveniles exceeded adults to a
greater degree in the heinous murder category between 1976 and 1986 than
they did in the 1987 to 1991 period. The decline of the difference between
juvenile and adult killers is a result both of more adults being involved in hei-
nous killings and of fewer juveniles being involved in such murders.
In our last analysis, we computed a total Barnett score by adding together
the nondichotomized values of the original scale scores and regressed this on.
sample, juvenile, and the sample by juvenile interaction term. As indicated in
Table 3, sample and juvenile have statistically significant, positive effects on
the overall seriousness score. More serious murders were committed be-
tween 1987 and 1991 than between 1976 and 1986. Juveniles who were tried
as adults were involved in more serious homicides than were adult offenders.
Once again, the interaction effect was not significant. The differences
between the adult and juvenile homicides were stable over the two periods.
There is no evidence that the homicides in which these juveniles were in-
volved became more serious crimes with the passing of time.
CONCLUSION
According to the get tough movement, juvenile offending is getting
worse. If this were the case, then juveniles who were bound over to be tried as
adults would show a significant increase in the seriousness of their homi-
cides. This clearly is not the case for Kentucky. Indeed, on the heinousness
measure, adults scored higher than did juveniles, the complete opposite of
what would be expected under the hypothesis. Juveniles being tried for mur-
446 THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2004
der in adult courts in the period after the Kentucky version of get tough legis-
lation passed had not committed more heinous murders than had juveniles
before the law passed.
However, regarding the deliberateness of the homicide and the killing of a
stranger, the homicides committed by these Kentucky juveniles were more
serious. Juveniles committed more deliberate murders and were more likely
to kill a stranger than were adults. These differences between juvenile and
adult killers in Kentucky remained constant over time. The crackdown on.
juvenile crime did result in a pool of juveniles being tried as adults who were
even more serious homicide offenders than were adults in the 1976 to 1986
period. Despite these mixed results, it appears that the get tough movement
still has some support in Kentucky.
During the 2003 session of the Kentucky legislature, Senator Gerald Neal
(Democrat from Louisville) and Representative Robin Webb (Democrat
from Grayson) introduced legislation to outlaw capital punishment for juve-
niles. Similar legislation has recently become law in Florida and Indiana (see
Hamm, 1989).
There are many reasons for this legislation. First, a poll by the University
of Kentucky revealed that 63% of Kentuckians favored the bill to abolish the
death penalty for juveniles. An even greater percentage of Kentuckians felt
that the death penalty was inappropriate for juvenile offenders (79.5%; Ken-
tucky Department of Public Advocacy, 2003). Second, severe penalties for
juvenile murderers in Kentucky, including a life sentence, life without the
possibility of parole for 25 years, and up to 70 years without the possibility of
parole eligibility for 59.5 years, are already in place. Third, former governor
Paul Patton, the Mental Health Association of Kentucky, Kentucky Youth
Advocates, and the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice supported this
bill in an earlier legislative session. The Courier-Journal (Louisville) and the
Lexington Herald-Leader have run editorials in support of the bill, urging its
consideration by the legislature. Fourth, only a handful of nations (e.g., Paki-
stan, Iran, Saudi Arabia) execute juveniles. The U.S. government and all but
16 states also do not execute juveniles. Finally, the nation’s leading medical
institutions, including the American Psychiatric Association, the American
Medical Association, the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and the National Mental Health Associ-
ation, filed an amicus curiae brief calling for an end to the juvenile death pen-
alty. In their brief, the groups state that the juvenile death penalty is unaccept-
able because adolescents are less developed than adults and therefore should
not be held to the same standard of culpability (see http://www.abanet.org/
crimjust/juvjus/simmons/simmonsamicus). In addition, the U.S. Catholic
Vito, Keil / JUVENILE HOMICIDE 447
Conference of Bishops and other leading religious organizations’ have also
filed an amicus curiae brief in Roper v. Simmons. It will be heard by the U.S.
Supreme Court in the fall 2004 session (Brief Amicus Curiae of the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops And Other Religious Organizations
in Support of Respondent, 2004).
Although the Kentucky Commonwealth Attorney’s Association has not
taken an official position on the bill, some prosecutors support the elimina-
tion of the death penalty for juveniles. Yet, the bill has been tied up in the
House Judiciary Committee and is unlikely to be brought up for a vote
(Gerth, 2002).
The results of this analysis support this call for the abolition of the death
penalty for juveniles in Kentucky. Although they are still committed, juve-
nile homicides have not worsened over time. Other sentences are in place that
could effectively punish juvenile murderers. The death penalty cannot be jus-
tified by the presence of an increasing problem with the number and nature of
juvenile homicides in Kentucky.
APPENDIX
The Barnett Classification System
I. Certainty that the Defendant is a Deliberate Killer
Score the case either 0, 1, 2 on this dimension, applying the following criteria:
A. The case is rated 0 if any of the following circumstances pertain:
1. The narrative indicates the evidence in the case seemed weak (e.g., “case
based solely on circumstantial evidence”).
2. The narrative mentions evidence that worked against the view that the
defendant was guilty (e.g., tests for residue on the defendant’s hand from
firing a gun were negative).
3. It seems clear that the defendant neither ordered the killing nor was the
triggerman. (Note that this differs from the weaker statement that it is
uncertain whether the defendant was the triggerman.)
4. The killing has an “accidental” touch about it, because:
a. A fairly long period (perhaps a week or more) elapsed between the
incident and the victim’s death, or
b. The death was caused by a beating similar to previous beatings of the
victim by the defendant.
5. There is reason to doubt that the defendant’s actions in themselves
would have caused the victim’s death (e.g., (i) the defendant beat the vic-
tim, but it was a co-conspirator’s stabbing that had killed him or (ii) the
defendant’s beating of the victim induced a heart seizure.)
6. The defendant was one of several participants in a conspiracy to kill, but
took no part in the actual killing.
448 THE PRISON JOURNAL / December 2004
7. The narrative mentions that the defendant was previously treated for
mental problems (e.g., institutionalized). Neglect references to insanity
if the defendant has no apparent medical history.
B. The case is rated 2 if any of the following elements were present:
1. The killing was a murder-for-hire, and the defendant was either the sole
instigator or the executioner.
2. The defendant plotted to kill the victim (e.g., a wife and her lover
arrange to murder her husband). If, however, the defendant was one of
several plotters, and clearly not the actual killer, assume (2) is not
satisfied.
3. The narrative mentions that the defendant was officially implicated in
other killings.
4. The narrative mentions that the defendant had tried previously to kill the
victim.
5. The defendant announced in advance to a third party an intention to kill
the victim. (Neglect this condition in a lover’s triangle or lover’s quarrel
case, or when the third party was a co-perpetrator.)
C. Ifthe killing warrants neither a0 nor a 2, give the case a rating of 1. If the kill-
ing satisfies conditions for both 0 and 2, also rate it a 1. Most “common”
slayings, such as killings during armed robberies or during barroom fights,
would warrant this intermediate classification. Indeed, a 2 reflects unusually
clear evidence of premeditation, while a 0 reflects unusually large doubt that
the defendant knowingly acted to cause the victim’s demise.
IL. Status of the Victim
On this dimension, the score is either 0 or 1. Give a score of 0 if:
A. The victim was a relative of the defendant (even his or her child).
B. The victim was a friend of the defendant. (Interpret the word “friend”
loosely; if, for example, two people of similar age are riding together volun-
tarily ina car, consider them friends. However, the mere fact that two people
know each other is not sufficient. Neighbors of vastly different ages, or the
bank teller and the depositor, are not assumed friends barring other evidence
of social ties).
C. The victim was an enemy of the defendant, though not the defendant's
employer. (Interpret the word “enemy” loosely; if, for instance, the victim
and defendant vied for the affections of the same woman, if the victim had
harassed one of the defendant’s loved ones, if there was a feud of some sort
that turned violent, assume enmity existed. If, however, the victim could be
viewed as the defendant’s employer—whether as (say) his supervisor in a
factory or the person who hired him to perform some chores—do not give a
score of zero.
If the case does not warrant the rating 0, give it the score 1. | is the appropriate rating
for most stranger-to-stranger killings and those in which the defendant only knew the
victim in the latter’s official capacity (e.g., as employer, or attendant in a local gas sta-
tion). If there are several victims, give the case a 0 if any of those slain qualify for it.
Vito, Keil/ JUVENILE HOMICIDE 449
IIL. The Heinousness of the Murder
There are two aspects of this dimension: the question of whether self-defense
motivated the killing and how “gruesome” it was.
A. Self defense is an element in the case under any of the following
circumstances:
1. The victim had at hand a deadly weapon at the time of the killing.
(Merely having a gun in the store or house does not satisfy (1).)
2. The victim was killed with his own weapon. (This is taken to imply (1) is
satisfied even if the narrative does not explicitly say so.)
NOTE: If the victim was a police officer, do not invoke self-defense (1)
or (2) unless the officer fired shots before the defendant did.
3. The victim had threatened to kill the defendant or one of the defendant's
loved ones.
4. The victim had attacked at the time of the killing.
Ifnone of the above conditions existed, self-defense was nota mitigating
circumstance in the homicide.
NOTE: If the only evidence of self-defense is the defendant's uncorrob-
orated claim, assume its absence even if any of (1)-(4) is alleged.
B. A homicide is classified as vile if one of the following circumstances
present:
1. Itwas accompanied by rape, or sexual abuse, either against the victim or
someone in the company of the victim.
2. There were at least two homicide victims.
. The deceased was a kidnapping victim at the time he was slain.
4. Psychological torture preceded the killing (e.g., Russian roulette, a sus-
tained period of terror.)
5. The victim was shot several times in the head at close range.
6. The killing was execution-style (i.e., victim forced to kneel or squat,
then shot in the head).
7. The death was caused by strangulation, or arson.
8. The death was caused by drowning in which physical force kept the vic-
tim below water.
9. The killing involved ten (10) or more shots or stab wounds, except when
the murder weapon was a penknife or other small cutting instrument.
10. The physical details of the killing are unusually repulsive (e.g., the vic-
tim drowned in his own blood).
11. The body was mutilated, or otherwise grossly disfigured (except in
attempt to conceal the homicide).
12. The killing was performed with a bizarre weapon (e.g., a hacksaw, a
claw hammer, an ice pick).
13. The defendant apparently derived pleasure from the very act of killing.
(This is distinct from his believing the victim deserved to die, and taking
pleasure on that account.)
14. The crime scene was specifically described in the narrative as extremely
bloody.
w
450 THE PRISON JOU!
‘AL / December 2004
Absent alll these circumstances, the homicide is classified as not vile. Despite the
length of the list above, most “simple” shootings, stabbings, and beatings would not
be classified as vile under these rules.
NOTE
1. The other religious organizations include the Alliance of Baptists, The American Associa-
tion of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, The American Friends Service Committee, The American
Jewish Committee, The American Jewish Congress, Bruderhof Communities Churches Interna-
tional, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Church Women United, Community of Christ, Engaged Zen
Foundation, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Foundation for the Preservation of
the Mahayana Tradition, The General Council on Finance and Administration of the United
Methodist Church, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, the Most Reverend Frank T.
Griswold—Presiding Bishop and Primate—The Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., Jewish Coun-
cil for Public Affairs, Clifton Kirkpatrick—as Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Pres-
byterian Church, Rev. Dwight M. Lundgren—Board of National Ministries—American Baptist
Churches USA, The Mennonite Central Committee, the Muslim Public Affairs Council,
Karamah—Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, National Council of Synagogues,
Prison Dharma Network, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Southern Christian Leadership Confer-
ence, Union for Reform Judaism and the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Unitarian
Universalist Association, and the United Church of Christ.
REFERENCES
Barnett, A. (1985). Some distribution patterns for the Georgia death sentence. U.C. Davis Law
Review, 18, 1327-1374.
Cornell, D. G. (1993). Juvenile homicide: A growing national problem. Behavioral Sciences &
the Law, 11, 389-396.
Cornell, D. G., Benedek, E. P., & Benedek, D. M. (1987). Characteristics of adolescents charged
with homicide: Review of 72 cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 5, 11-23.
Eigen, J. P. (1981). Punishing youth homicide offenders in Philadelphia. Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology, 1079, 867-1924.
Fox, J. A. (1999). Uniform crime report (Kentucky): Supplementary homicide reports, 1976-
1997, Boston: Northeastern University, College of Criminal Justice.
Gerth, J. (2002, February 22). Measures to end the death penalty for juveniles are stalled. Louis-
ville Courier-Journal, p. B4.
Hamm, M. S. (1989). Legislator ideology and capital punishment: The special case for Indiana
juveniles. Justice Quarterly, 6, 219-232
Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy. (2003, February). Juvenile death penalty opinions,
nationally and in Kentucky. Legislative update covering criminal justice legal issues (No.
16). Retrieved July 23, 2004, from http://dpa.ky.gov/library/legupd/no. 16,03/ch2.html
Kentucky Revised Code, 640.010-640.120 (2000).
Laub, J. H., & Cook, P. J. (1998). The unprecedented epidemic in youth violence. In M. Tonry &
M. H. Moore (Eds.), Youth violence (pp. 27-64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vito, Keil/ JUVENILE HOMICIDE 451
Lewis, D. O. (1988). Intrinsic and environmental characteristics of juvenile murderers. Journal
of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychology, 27, 582-587.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). (1999). Juvenile offenders and
victims, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Ogloff, J. R. P. (1987). The juvenile death penalty: A frustrated society’s attempt at control.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 5, 447-455.
OJIDP statistical briefing book. (2000, December). Retrieved March 5, 2002, from http://
ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/qa255.html
Rowley, J.C., Ewing, C. P., & Singer, S. 1. (1987). Juvenile homicide: The need for an interdisci-
plinary approach. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 5, 1-10.
Streib, V. L. (1987). Death penalty for juveniles, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Gennaro F. Vito is a professor of justice administration at the University of Louisville. He
is also a member of the faculty of the administrative officers’ course at the Southern
Police Institute. His current research covers issues in police management such as Comp-
stat and community policing.
Thomas J. Keil is a professor of sociology at Arizona State University West. His current
research focuses on demographic and political issues in Eastern Europe, especially
Romania.
