Equal or proportional justice for accessories? Children's pearls of proportionate wisdom

“Equalist justice”, where the principal and the accessories in felony-murder are punished equally, was endorsed, in part, in Tison v. Arizona (1987). Despite Court approval, equalism contravenes the principle of “proportionality”—where severity of punishment is proportionately hinged to the degree of culpability. Psychological attribution theories and research results also contradict equalism, as adults' verdict and sentencing decisions in general, and in felony-murder situations in particular, are made proportionately to the perceived culpability of the defendants. We test this equalism vs. proportionalism question with children, and we find that kindergarten, second and third, and fifth grade subjects also endorse proportionalism as the rule—a rule discernible at the youngest age level, and one that grows clearer and brighter with age. Even these youngest citizens reject the sort of equalism that the Supreme Court embraced.