Justice for a New Frontier
Here's the socio-biological argument against executing juvenile murderers in the case of Roper v. Simmons, now before the Supreme Court, very simply put:
Juvenile ofenders lack the brain development and social maturity required to distinguish between matters of ultimate right and wrong, and therefore, as in cases of mental retardation, cannot be held to ultimate account for their rash, ill-considered decisions, however evil the consequences.
Okay. But is there any sense in which we might say that by definition one would have to lack some capacity normal to a person's majority in order to commit murder? In other words, isn't murder always a case of some retardation - some fundamental immaturity? What then?