Adolescent Equity Framework

Age variances determine the conclusion of whether one should get the death penalty. The United States believes that at the age of 18 a person is adequate for the death penalty. On one hand, any person who commits capital murder should be condemned to death. On the other hand, the laws that are in place are inadequate and obsolete. Thus, making the courts restructured. From 1989, juveniles at the age of six-teen or older could be condemned to death upon sentence. But, the Supreme Court used intercontinental laws to govern the age of which one can obtain the death penalty.

One court case that stands out in regards to juveniles receiving the death penalty is Roper v. Simmons. In that court case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that crimes

The main role of the adolescent equity framework is to consider adolescent guilty parties responsible for reprobate acts while giving treatment, recovery, and projects intended to avert recidivism. Adolescent courts have perceived that there are formative contrasts amongst grown-ups and adolescents and supported fitting rehabilitative frameworks. Be that as it may, with the entry of overhauled capital punishment statutes and the expansion in vicious violations, the adolescent equity framework has seen a movement toward more grounded strategies and disciplines. More adolescents are seeing their cases exchanged to criminal courts. With this change, more youth capital guilty parties are liable to capital punishment sentencing. No matter what, the criminal justice system for juveniles should be nothing less than rehabilitating these young juveniles so they can be placed back into society as better people, not just killing them and doing away with them for one crime. “Three general differences between juveniles under 18 and adults

When you look at the death penalty, from both sides of the spectrum, there are and will always be people that are for it and against it. Adding juveniles to the discussion only adds for a more heated debate. Many of the differing views come from the moral standings of killing a person so young as well as allowing someone who committed a crime such as murder to walk the streets again. At what point do you ask yourself, “Is it right for a juvenile without proper home raising and care to be sentenced to death for a crime such as murder?” By no means necessary is their an excuse for their actions, but why not try to help these young individuals with a troubled past? Crime itself is such a huge factor in today’s society but when you throw in the fact that juveniles under the age of eighteen commit a crime, the playing field changes dramatically. After the ruling of Roper v. Simmons, many lives were changed, and also saved. Seventy-two inmates on death row had their lives saved after the ruling of Roper v. Simmons. (Bochenek, 2005). Those same seventy-two lives that were changed still committed their crimes and yet now they get to work on what got them there instead of waking up every day with the thought of, “Is today my day to