Death pentalty for teenagers? Posted by Emily Hollosi and Annie Iliano

A supreme court decision has just been made to not allow teenagers of 16 or 17 years of age to recive the death penalty when convicetd of crimes that would require that sentence in an ordinary cicumstance. The ruling also revoked the death penalty from current inmates who commited their crimes as teenagers. The ruling was 5-4, so the officials held differing opinions about the issue.
Using Toulimin's practical argument model, we will analyze this issue and address grounds, warrant, backing, modality, rebuttal, and claim.
Grounds: The argument based it's grounds on "the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity," Kennedy quoted from the majority ruling. In other words, the majority believed that 16 and 17 year olds have not had the opportunity to develop fully as humans, and should be given that right.
Warrant: The beleifs of the majority that led from the grounds of the argument to the claim was that average 16 and 17 year olds don't fully comprehend the repurcusssions that their actions have on socity, the way that adults of fully developed mental capacity can.
Backing: "The court has recognized that juveniles are categorically distinct from mature offenders. It's up to us as judges, advocates to explore those implications with regard to other forms of sentencing, the way they are treated in society," Levick said. Basically, the courts also acknowledged the fact that teenagers are distinctly different from adults, and should be treated that way when it comes to the legal system.
Modality: The argument, when it comes to the difference between those who voted, was 5-4. So, the modality in that sense is not very strong. The majority only won by one vote. However, in the argument given by the majority that supports their beleifs on the idea of teenage death penalty, the modality is unclear. They use words such as being "delighted," they however do not report on their level of confidence. (It is implied as very confident in the article).
Rebuttal: The rebuttal comes from those opposing this decision and bases the argument on the idea of slowly chipping away at the system. Blecker said "opponents would next go after life imprisonment without parole for juveniles, would also lobby to raise the age of eligibility to 20 or 21". ALthough this is a rebuttal from the opposing views, because the claim is so limited, the majority side has no rebuttal. There are no special circumstances in this case. All 16 and 17 year olds are treated the same.
Claim: All 16 and 17 year olds should be eliminated from being able to receive the death penalty.