g to the Supreme Court decisions in this area. However, the members of the Court have shown themselves to be divided on the issue. This division signals a degree of uncertainty caused by the opposing emotional factors which make up this issue. On the one hand, minors have traditionally been considered too immature to be capable of formulating the necessary intent to commit a capital crime. On the other, minors seem to be committing a disproportionate amount of crimes which would be considered capital in nature if committed by adults. One's stance on the issue depends upon which of the above factors impact more strongly on the psyche. Likewise, the individual decisions of the Court in this area have largely been determined by the feelings of the individual justices.
One can also look to the public feeling on this issue. Although much has always been said concerning a supposed public distaste for the execution of minors, recent trends seem to indicate that this distaste is receding. In large part, this may the result of several notorious cases involving brutal crimes committed by juveniles. There appears to be a growing feeling that juvenile criminals are out of control, restrained by no sense of moral feeling whatsoever. In response, many in society feel that a message should be sent to such young offenders that they will be tolerated no longer.
Finally, the moral issue cannot be ignored. Traditionally, juveniles were considered incompetent for the purpose of formulating the intent necessary for committing a capital crime. However, it seems illogical to draw a bright line at the age of eighteen. A birthday does not make one competent or mature in and of itself. Many individuals under the age of eighteen are mature and competent enough to formulate the necessary intent for committing a capital crime. The relevant question would seem to be how to determine whether an individual was mature and competent enough to formul...