The issue that is apparent in the Amicus Brief is if sentencing a minor, aged …show more content…
Their brain has not fully developed yet, especially in the frontal lobe, which is the area where we tend to stand back, rationalize our decisions, and see if we should proceed further. They usually do not think of future consequences with their current actions. MRI studies have shown the frontal cortex is the last thing to grow in the developmental stages of the brain. Due to psychologists having no proof of examinations indicating whether violent adolescents will in turn be violent in adulthood, there is no way to say that they will continue on with that behavior. The Amicus brief was stating how anyone under the age of 18 should not receive the death penalty. It also mentioned how adolescents fall more into peer behavior in which it causes delinquent actions. So, because a 16 and 17 year olds maturity is not the same as the maturity of an adult, they feel that it is unconstitutional to serve the death penalty to Christopher