Juveniles are defended by the argument that they are not aware of their actions because of their age but adolescents do have a sense of their actions. A California boy without emotion shot his father in 2011 when his father was lying on the couch. The father, Jeffrey hall, was the leader of a new Nazi organization called the National Socialist Movement. The National Socialist Movement have Adolf Hitler as an idol and go against Jewish, immigrants and not pure blood white. In the article Judge: California boy murdered new Nazi dad, knew it was wrong by Greg Botelho, CNN says, “A California judge ruled Monday that a 10-year old boy committed second-degree murder--and knew what he was doing was wrong—when he fatally shot his father, a local new-Nazi …show more content…
leader” (Botelho 1). This juvenile without any compassion killed his father because there was abuse and family separation. These reasons led him to take these heinous action. But this California adolescent was aware of his action and makes it clear that he knew what he was doing. This in fact proves that juveniles do not make these decisions because their brains is not fully developed and confused but because they are aware and decide to commit these actions. There a several adolescents that are aware of their actions so they deserve to be in jail because that benefits our society to be safer. Not all kids commit heinous crimes because they acted on impulse. Should kids that planned their attacks be incarcerated? I believe so because kids that plan to kill are aware of their emotions and actions. These are born killers that are aware and intend to hurt others. Adam Liptak, agrees when he writes, “Prosecutors and representatives of crime victims say that a sentence of natural life is the minimum fir punishment for a heinous crime, adding that some people are too dangerous to ever walk the streets” (Liptak 1). This is true because if a killer was roaming around society then he will most likely commit another heinous crime. It is best to keep these criminals of the street for the safety of others. Basically, Liptak is saying that juveniles that commit heinous crimes such as murder should be sentenced to life without parole. Several people argue that kids should not be thrown in jail because it inhumane. What is really inhumane is a juvenile taking a person’s life away. Our society should try its best to separate criminals from innocent people. Our society is full of criminals but these criminals had to have started at a young age. Therefore these juveniles that commit heinous crimes at a young age are potentially thought as future criminals and must be restrained and trialed as an adult to protect our society from future criminals. If these are juveniles are trialed as adults then our society will be much safer and will maintain the streets from criminals. In the article, Teen is sentenced in Slaying with a Bat by Ann M. Simmons, states, “The boy was 13 when he struck 15-year-old Jeremy Rourke with a bat after a Pony League Baseball game in Palmdale on April 12, 2005. Witness said that the boy swung twice, first at Rourke’s legs, and then at his head Rourke was pronounced dead at a hospital that right. His assailant was originally convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to a detention center until he turns 25” (Simmons 1). The 13 year old that attacked Jeremy Rourke for a silly reason then potentially can become a professional criminal and continuously commit heinous crimes. This could change if courts act fast and trial these juveniles as adults then they will save time and effort in trying to capture them. Finally, that is a reason to trial juveniles as adults because it will lead to a much safer society and lead to tranquility. Adolescents will realize their actions were bad and portray to other juveniles that if they commit a heinous then they will be trialed as an adult. If the Supreme Court decided to make the sentencing much harsher than the juveniles will think twice about committing a heinous.
The courts are delegating about these children not knowing what they are doing because their brain is not fully developed. But the article Should the Law Treat Kids and Adults the same by Jessica Reaves states, “Harsh sentencing acts as a deterrent to kids who are considering committing crimes. Trying children as adults has concede with lower rates of juvenile crimes. Life sentencing does not teach kids the lesson they need to learn: If you commit a terrible crime, you will spend a considerable part of your life in jail” (Reaves). Therefore adolescents will be aware of the consequences that will be given if committed a heinous crime like murder. Even if adolescents do not have fully developed brains, they still do have the capacity to understand the consequences of their heinous crimes they committed. This can become a pro throughout the future because there will be a smaller rate of juvenile crimes and less criminals in the future to come. It is justifiable to charge juveniles as adults because it makes our world a better place. Society cannot be treating kids any differently from adults. Age should not be taken in account when a murder is committed. Life is too precious to be taken away. Therefore people that take a person’s life away should be incarcerated no matter how old they are. Society should not take chances on criminals that commit …show more content…
heinous crimes because they are most likely going to keep committing crimes. If a person took one of your relatives life away, would you not be sad? People should not just come to a conclusion, saying that juveniles should not be trailed as adults because they are just kids. People should try to see what others have gone through by trying to understand how it would feel to lose a family member. Even though juveniles do not have a fully developed brain they are still old enough to understand that killing another human being is bad. Institute of mental health in the article, The Teen Brain: Still under Construction states, “An understanding on how the brain of an adolescent is changing may help explain a puzzling contradiction of adolescence: young people at this age are close to a lifelong peak of physical health, strength and mental capacity, and yet for some, this can be a hazardous age” (National Institute of Mental Health 1). Through this credible source it clearly states that juveniles do not understand how to respond to complex things. This is true but knowing killing another person is bad is not that complex. It is obvious things to know but these kids still do commit these crimes. For example, juveniles do not have their brain the same size as a baby so they should able to understand something as simple as knowing not to kill. This explains that they know what is right from wrong. Therefore juveniles know that murdering is wrong and should be tried as an adult so they will still stop committing heinous crimes. If this happens than our society will have less criminals around make our planet a safer place. Juveniles must be tried as adults because they do understand their actions and will think twice about their actions if they are tried as an adult.
All the evidence I provided proves adolescent’s brain do have the capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. If an adult commits a murder and a juveniles commits the same murder but they are sentenced differently, that will not be just or fair. A crime is a crime so it is only fair that adolescents must be trailed the same as an adult. If juveniles that commit heinous crimes are tried as adults then our society will be surrounded by fewer criminals who bring safety to our communities. In conclusion, juveniles must be trialed as adults to create a safer environment for
everyone.
Within the last five years, violent offenses by children have increased 68 percent, crimes such as: murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Honestly, with these figures, it is not surprising at all that the Juveniles Courts focus less on the children in danger, and focus more on dangerous children. This in fact is most likely the underlying reasoning behind juveniles being tried as adults by imposing harsher and stiffer sentences. However, these policies fail to recognize the developmental differences between young people and
The central idea of this article is to show the two sides of the prompt ¨should Juveniles be tried as adults?¨ This article uses a lot of stories to help back herself up in her answer. The authority with the author/creator is trustworthy because, Jessica Reaves works for a trustworthy place ¨Time¨ The difficult part of trusting the accuracy of the article is, it was published in 2001 which could have a lot of changes in roughly 15 or 16 years. The article uses examples of juvenile violence to prove the point that kids are treated differently from adults. Readers can use this article to prove that kids are incapable of understanding the consequences of their action.
Many theories, at both the macro and micro level, have been proposed to explain juvenile crime. Some prominent theories include Social Disorganization theory, Differential Social Organization theory, Social Control theory, and Differential Association theory. When determining which theories are more valid, the question must be explored whether people deviate because of what they learn or from how they are controlled? Mercer L. Sullivan’s book, “Getting Paid” Youth Crime and Work in the Inner City clearly suggests that the learning theories both at the macro level, Differential social organization, and micro level, Differential association theory, are the more accurate of the two types of theory.
Even though juveniles brains’ aren't developed at the age they committed the crime, they should be able to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong. However, four justices strongly agree, mandatory sentences reflected the will of America society that heinous crimes committed by juveniles should always be punished. The majority of Supreme Court justices who argued to abolish mandatory life in prison for juveniles. Researchers around the world agree with this statement because juveniles don't have a fully developed brain or have rough homes. Many juveniles have don't first degree misers and second degree murders. I stand against abolishing mandatory life in prison. In my opinion Juveniles, depending on the the crime should be sentenced
On the contrary Jenkins argues that if that was the case, then teens would kill at roughly the same rates all around the world. On my behalf I concur with Jenkins because everyone is responsible for their own actions and behavior. Consciousness, is what awares our minds whether we decide if we want to do something or not and what is right and wrong. If brain underdevelopment is supposedly one of the reasons, then why aren 't my siblings and I kill people like the other juveniles who are. Professor Stephen Morse reasons that “the actual science does not in any way negate criminal culpability”. We cannot incriminate science or anything because every individual will be different in many aspects because every kid matures and grows at different ages and stages. For example, from my own experiences I have seen a twelve year old child be more mature and formal than a thirty year old adult. In some cases, some children mature when they go through puberty, others till later or maybe even at a very young age.. The “underdevelopment brain” argument should not be an issue to interfere with why a juvenile should not be trial to life in prison. Although a teenager will suggest and demand that their emotions ran high, which was why they killed somebody and their
Unfortunately, these two cases are not uncommon in the justice world. As a matter of fact, “by 2010, Florida had sentenced more than a hundred children to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses,” (Stevenson 153). One of the primary reasons for this originated in the idea that harsher punishments will act as a deterrent for kids who want to break the law. However, recent studies have suggested that because the prefrontal lobe of the brain is still in development until the age of twenty, children don’t have the mental capacity to make the best decisions, especially under stress. Additionally, children normally wouldn’t have access to weapons or drugs, which allows the argument that adults should be held responsible for making such objects available to them in the first place (Reaves).
Heinous crimes are considered brutal and common among adults who commit these crimes, but among children with a young age, it is something that is now being counted for an adult trial and punishable with life sentencing. Although some people agree with this decision being made by judges, It is my foremost belief that juveniles don’t deserve to be given life sentencing without being given a chance at rehabilitation. If this goes on there’s no point in even having a juvenile system if children are not being rehabilitated and just being sent off to prison for the rest of their lives and having no chance getting an education or future. Gail Garinger’s article “ juveniles Don’t deserve Life sentence”, written March 14, 2012 and published by New york Times, mentions that “ Nationwide, 79 adolescents have been sentenced to die in prison-a sentence not imposed on children anywhere else in the world. These children were told that they could never change and that no one cared what became of them. They were denied access to education and rehabilitation programs and left without help or hope”. I myself know what it’s like to be in a situation like that, and i also know that people are capable of changing even children when they are young and still growing.
It is expected that at a young age, children are taught the difference between what is right and what is wrong in all types of situations. The majority of Supreme Court Justices abolished mandatory life in prison for juveniles that commit heinous crimes, argued this with the consideration of age immaturity, impetuosity, and also negative family and home environments. These violent crimes can be defined as murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault and the like depending on state law. With these monstrous acts in mind the supreme court justices argument could be proven otherwise through capability and accountability, the underdevelopment of the teenage brain and the severity of the crime. Juveniles commit heinous crimes just like adults
There has always been controversies as to whether juvenile criminals should be tried as adults or not. Over the years more and more teenagers have been involved in committing crimes. In some cases the juries have been too rough on the teens. Trying teens as adults can have a both positive and negative views. For example, teens that are detained can provide information about other crimes, can have an impact in social conditions, and serve as experience; however, it can be negative because teens are still not mature enough for that experience, they are exposed to adult criminals; and they will lose out on getting an education.
Sentencing juveniles to capital punishment is unethical and cruel. It is too severe for juveniles without the full reasoning ability and limited brain development to be sentence to the death penalty. Horn (2009) writes, “Youths lack the sense of responsibility that society requires of adults. Their personalities are not yet fixed… Young people have to little experience to fully grasp the consequences of their actions.” (Horn, 2009). This shows that juveniles do not have the experience that adults have to be like adults. Also, Stevenson (2014) writes, “Contemporary neurological, psychological…evidence has established that children are impaired by immature judgement, an underdeveloped capacity for self-regulation and responsibility, vulnerability to negative influences and outside pressures, and a lack of control over their own impulses and their environment.” (Stevenson, 2014, pg. 267-268). Stevenson (2014) is basically saying that children are not matured as adults and the court needs to look at these facts before giving such punishments. Not only that, Stevenson (2014) says, “Young adolescents lack life experience and background knowledge to inform their choices; they struggle to generate options and to imagine consequences; and, perhaps for good reason, they lack the necessary self-confidence to make reasoned judgements and stick by them” (Stevenson, 2014, pg. 268-269). Children should be
Juveniles are more than just kids. They are capable of doing anything an adult is capable of doing. One has probably heard the saying, “If you want to be treated like an adult, then act like an adult.” If they’re going to do crimes that “only” adults are capable of doing, then they should treated like an adult and be tried and sentenced like one. Imagine being close to a murder victim, wouldn’t you want them to feel hell? “How would you feel if you never got to see your child alive again while their killer served only a short sentence before being released from jail?” (hchs1259). This quote hits hard. One can only imagine being in the position of a parent whose child was murdered.
How immature juveniles are not known. But what we do know that they are indeed immature, and cannot control their actions at times. Teens do not think at times as Marjie Lundstrom says in her article Kids Are Kids-Until They Commit Crimes from the Sacramento Bee, published March 1, 2001 “...Tate supposedl...
once the minor has committed a violent crime, they are no longer a kid. The minor had the ability to know right from wrong, but he still chose to commit the heinous crime anyway. Choosing to commit this violent crime means that the minor chose to act as an adult and must be held accountable. Once the minor has made the decision to act as an adult, they must be treated as an adult. If we do not teach minors that what they did has consequences they will never learn. Arguments can be made that minors should not be treated as adults and while these arguments do have merit, they are not my beliefs. In my opinion, minors who commit violent crimes need to be tried as adults. Justice does not discriminate when it comes to age. Right is right, and wrong is wrong and the wrong should be punished equally.
That’s why we don’t permit 15-year-olds to drink, drive, vote or join the military” (qtd. in Billitteri). There is adolescent-development research according to Hambrick, J. and Ellem, J that has shown “children do not possess the same capacity as adults to think thru the consequences of their behaviors, control their responses or avoid peer pressure” (qtd. in Lyons). There are some very good points made in the argument against sentencing youth as adults but I still have a hard time agreeing with peer pressure or impulse control as a reason to be held in a juvenile center for less than a few years for murder. Ryan, L. uses the example of a report released by the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention on “Juvenile Transfer Laws : An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency?” This report found that prosecuting youths as adults has little or no effect on juvenile crime.” She uses this information and backs it up with the report showing “youths prosecuted as adults are more likely to re-offend than youths handled in the juvenile justice system” (qtd. in Katel). This is definitely a new perspective, but I still stand with my first take on the subject. “We know young people can commit serious crimes, and the consequences are no less tragic” (qtd in
While many argue that juveniles who commit serious crimes, such as murder, should be treated as adults, the fact is, juveniles under the age of eighteen, are not adults, and should not be treated as such. Juveniles are not mature enough or developed psychologically, and, therefore, do not consider the consequences of their actions. In the article, “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” by Thompson, the writer argues that juveniles are not adults. Their brains develop at different stages and they learn skills that they need to learn at a certain time.