The claim that Garinger omits through her article, “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences,” (2012), is that young adolescents should not be convicted and tried like adults. Although the Supreme Court knows that child offenders cannot “reliably be classified among the worst offenders,” they still sentence minors to life without parole. As being the state appointed child advocate in Massachusetts and a former juvenile court judge, Garinger is the most credible author and proves to have the most Ethos throughout her article. Garinger has “seen firsthand the enormous capacity of children to change and turn themselves around. The same malleability that makes them vulnerable to peer pressure, also makes them promising candidates for rehabilitation” …show more content…
This helps to develop Garinger’s credibility because of her experiences and knowledge on children within the court systems. Although there was once a group of criminologist that predicted a “coming wave of violent juvenile crime:’superpredators,’ as young as 11, committing crimes in ‘wolfpacts,’” (P1) Garinger declares that they believe that children should not be sentenced to life as well. “The criminologist who promoted the superpredator theory have acknowledged that their prediction never came to pass,” states Garinger, they “repudiated the theory and expressed regret” (P10). The criminologist contributed to politicians lowering the age children could be tried as adults. As Garinger expressed no true evidence of this happening other than her experiencing this firsthand, she is still considered to be a reliable source. In conclusion, Garinger was successful in her article for persuading her reader to believe that children should not be classified and punished as adults, because of her experiences as well as knowledge on the subject of minor juveniles. …show more content…
Jenkins’s personal experience with a juvenile minor was when her younger sister’s family was shot and killed by a savage teen killer. Jenkins believes that her sister’s killer, “came from privilege. When he got in trouble, his parents fixed it. After a series of other crimes, he planned the murders for months,carefully and privately,”(P7). Although Jenkins describes the young adolescent planning the murder, no evidence proves this. Jenkins is then seen as an uncredible because of her emotional motivation to punish the teen who slaughtered her unborn niece or nephew. Nationwide campaigns “with no regard to the impact on victims’ families,” Jenkins states,”have published glossy ‘reports’ widely distributing to the media and legislators,”trying to support convicted murderers (P10). This is again Jenkins opinion, or rather her disgust about the media falsely advertising teen killers, instead of facts to prove her belief in punishing young adolescents. In conclusion, Jennifer Jenkins has a biased understanding on why children should be sentenced to life because of her relation to a victim.
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
Juveniles don’t deserve life sentences without parole for many reasons but one main reason is becase people don’t know a person’s life at home and sometimes living in a broken home can affect their social life. According to the article “Greg Ousley Is Sorry for Killing His Parents”, the author Scott Anderson states that,“The only way to unlock the mysteries of the psyche is to dissect your childhood, especially the formative influence of your parents” (Anderson 56), proving that juveniles are easily influenced to do terrifying crimes and is not their fault because no one was there to guide them.
In the article On Punishment and Teen Killers by Jenkins, sadly brings to our attention that kids are sometimes responsible for unimaginable crimes, in 1990 in a suburban Chicago neighborhood a teenager murdered a women, her husband, and her unborn child, as she begged for the life of her unborn child he shot her and later reported to a close friend that it was a “thrill kill”, that he just simply wanted to see what it felt like to shoot someone. A major recent issue being debated is whether or not we have the right to sentence Juveniles who commit heinous crimes to life in adult penitentiaries without parole. I strongly believe and agree with the law that states adolescents who commit these heinous crimes should be tried as adults and sentenced as adults, however I don’t believe they should be sentenced to life without parole. I chose this position because I believe that these young adults in no way should be excused for their actions and need to face the severe consequences of their actions. Although on the other hand I believe change is possible and that prison could be rehabilitating and that parole should be offered.
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.
Thus, the shifting perceptions of the justice system has transformed what it means to be a child and an adult due to their pervasive, and punitive approaches to crime and delinquency. Although adolescents today enjoy many new freedoms and greater time to experiment, those that don’t conform to “normative behaviors” and engage in socially constructed definitions of delinquency, often end up under the firm hands of the juvenile justice system. Despite the creation of this phase in an adolescent’s life, the injustices within the adult justice system have breached into the juvenile system, thus, blurring the lines of what it means to be an adolescent in modern times. Thereby, the adolescent stage is constantly being manipulated to conform and match the social construction of crime and delinquency, and the rise in the practice of trying juveniles as adults within the court system and mandating life sentences is evidence of this
Most people don 't look at every aspect of a crime. They don 't think about everyone that was affected, other than the victim. In her article "On Punishment and Teen Killers", Jennifer Jenkins explains how her younger sister was taken from her by a murderer who shot and killed her. In her article she states, "So few who work on the juvenile offender side can truly understand what the victims of their crimes sometimes go through. Some never recover." Jenkins is explaining her personal experience of losing her younger sister to help others understand what the families of the victim have to deal with for the rest of their lives. She brings a point of view that most people have never been in because they 've never experienced what it 's like to have a loved one taken away from you by murder. In her story she also states, "If brain development were the reason, then teens would kill at roughly the same rates all over the world." Many people believe that the supreme court needs to be more lenient on juveniles because their brain is not fully developed as that of an adult, but brain development cannot be used as an excuse because as Jenkins explains, the teens would be killing at the same rate all over the world. Jenkins also brings up a good point about how the US as a whole needs to step up to prevent these crimes from happening. Jenkins states, "We in America have to own to this particular problem, with weapons so easily available to our youth, and the violence-loving culture we raise them. She is trying to bring awareness to society that America is also at fault for these crimes. Furthermore, she also explains why life sentencing is not as cruel as some may feel it is when she says, "… a life sentencing still allows a great deal of good living to be done, even from behind bars, far more than these teen killers gave to our murdered love
If a family member was murdered, a family member was murdered, age should not dictate if the punishment for homicide will be more lenient or not. If anyone not just juveniles has the capabilities to take someone's life and does so knowing the repercussions, they should be convicted as an adult. In the case of Jennifer Bishop Jenkins who lost her sister, the husband and their unborn child, is a strong advocate of juveniles being sentenced to life without parole. In her article “Jennifer Bishop Jenkins On Punishment and Teen Killers” she shows the world the other side of the spectrum, how it is to be the victim of a juvenile in a changing society where people are fighting against life sentences for juveniles. As she states in the article “There are no words adequate to describe what this kind of traumatic loss does to a victims family. So few who work on the juvenile offender side can truly understand what the victims of their crimes sometimes go through. Some never
The sentencing of underage criminals has remained a logistical and moral issue in the world for a very long time. The issue is brought to our perspective in the documentary Making a Murderer and the audio podcast Serial. When trying to overcome this issue, we ask ourselves, “When should juveniles receive life sentences?” or “Should young inmates be housed with adults?” or “Was the Supreme Court right to make it illegal to sentence a minor to death?”. There are multiple answers to these questions, and it’s necessary to either take a moral or logical approach to the problem.
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.
In recent times, states increasingly pushed for juveniles to be processed as adults in the criminal justice system, which subjected them to overly harsh punishments. Prior to this ruling by the Supreme Court, although the numbers vary, there are approximately 2,500 individuals who were currently serving a sentence, in which they received as a juvenile, of life without the possibility of parole, in twenty nine states that imposed this penalty. The story of Erik Jensen and Nathan Ybanez was just the first of many in which have remained with me through out the
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While California's juvenile population rose by a half a million since the middle and late 1970's, juveniles made up less than fifth-teen percent of California's felony arrests in 1998, compared to thirty percent in 1978; according to the Justice Policy Institute. The juvenile arrests have dropped back, even as the population of kids between ages of ten and eight-teen has continued to grow, and the number of kids confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA) has fallen. With all the progress our society has made in cutting back in juvenile crimes there is still a very serious problem. But if locking kids up is the best way to address it, how do we explain a drop in crime when there are more teens in California and fewer in custody? First we must look at the economy around us. With so many job opportunities available more and more teenagers find honest ways to keep busy and make money. Our generation has a brighter future than the generation a decade ago. Next we look at successful crime prevention efforts: after-school programs, mentoring, teen outreach programs, truancy abatement, anti-gang programs, family resource centers. There is evidence that these programs are beginning to pay off. Sending more, and younger teens through the adult court system has been a trend across the country in reaction to crimes, such as school shootings and violent rapes. Yet evidence shows that treating youth as adults does not reduce crime. In Florida, where probability wise more kids are tried as adults then in any other state, studies found that youth sent through the adult court system are twice as likely to commit more crimes when they're release...
Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is entirely eliminating the use of the life without parole sentence for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the crime being charged.
Much controversy exists on the question of whether a juvenile criminal should be punished to the same extent as an adult. Those who commit capitol crimes, including adolescents, should be penalized according to the law. Age should not be a factor in the case of serious crimes. Many people claim that the child did not know any better, or that he was brought up with the conception that this behavior is acceptable. Although there is some truth to these allegations, the reality of this social issue is far more complex. Therefore we ask the question, "Should childhood offenders of capitols crimes be treated as adults?"
References Glick, B. (1998) No Time to Play: Youthful Offenders in Adult Correctional Systems. American Correctional Association Wilkerson, I (1996) “Death Sentence at Sixteen Rekindles Debate on Justice for Juveniles.” New York Times, November Butts, J.A. and Snyder, H. (1997) “The Youngest Delinquents: Offenders Under the Age of 15,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice) Lefevre, P.S., “Professor Grapples with Execution of Juveniles.” National Catholic Reporter Snyder, A. “Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders” (1997) National Center for Juvenile Justice
In the article “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences”, by Garinger, she argues that juveniles should not be treated as adults if they commit horrible crimes. Garinger states that juveniles should not be sentenced to life in prison without parole. She states that the court is considering life in prison without parole for juveniles who commit capital crimes. Garinger says that juveniles are immature, and still developing, so they can not be held to the same standards as adults. The writer adds that as a juvenile court judge, she has seen how juveniles can change and may become rehabilitated.