The United States has always had criminals walking around the streets or locked up in an everyday life situation. Crimes are committed everyday by young children, adults, seniors, or any kind of man or woman that may look like a bad influence or others that look like innocent people walking down the streets who have never committed a crime before. Juveniles ages 7-15 should not be sentenced to life without parole for crimes they commit because it would not be fair for them to spend the rest of their lives in jail for committing a mistake. Reasons can be found on why juveniles should be left inside a cell and arguments can build up if people disagree with one another. Some adults commit crimes and are left with freedom after a satisfied amount …show more content…
According to the law, children ages 7-15 legally do not know what is wrong or what is right to do. Children who do not know what is wrong or right can commit a crime without knowing how bad the consequences can be. Immature children do not know most factors the way regular human beings know and can commit more errors by accident than other human beings will commit on purpose. Immature children should not be sentenced to life because they rarely know the rules of life and unlike most adults; they do not know what is good or bad about it. For example, “juveniles are different from adults in terms of brain development and maturity levels” (Corrington 1). Crimes children or immatures can commit include killing someone in a fight, choking someone out, or running over someone by accident. Arguments can also build in by saying teenagers should get sentenced to life for being immature and doing things immaturely. If a young teenager runs over another teenager or children and kills them, of course the parents are going to want the responsible driver to pay for what they have done. Sometimes jail is not enough and the parents or family members of victims want to kill whoever was responsible for the disgrace that happened. A big percentage of people do not understand that young children do not know what adults are capable of doing if it was …show more content…
Different articles state different facts on why juveniles should stay in prison and others disagree because they feel that if they get released and put into rehabilitation, their lives will better for the future. For people that have never been to prison, it is hard in their perspective to understand how one suffers being locked up with no freedom and without having as many rights as any other man or woman have. If people had the chance to talk to former delinquents that now live a good lifestyle, there would be a chance that non-criminals would understand that people can change when they come out of prison. The juvenile justice system should put a satisfying sentence for juveniles and should keep punishing other delinquents in a matter that is not cruel and would be fair enough until they feel like they have learned their
Many people say that the systems first priority should be to protect the public from the juvenile criminals that are a danger to others. Once the juveniles enter the system there is however, arguments on what should be done with them. Especially for those deemed too dangerous to be released back to their parents. Some want them locked away for as long as possible without rehabilitation, thinking that it will halt their criminal actions. One way to do this they argue would be to send them into an adult court. This has been a large way to reform the juvenile system, by lowering the age limits. I believe in certain cases this is the best method for unforgiving juveniles convicted of murder, as in the case of Ronald Duncan, who got away with a much lesser sentence due to his age. However another juvenile, Geri Vance, was old enough to be sent into the adult court, which caused him t...
“You are hereby sentenced to life without the possibility of parole”. These are the words that a juvenile in America is likely to hear. Collectively, as a nation, the United States has incarcerated more juveniles with life sentences than any other nation. With this fact the arguments arise that juveniles should not be punished the same was as an adult would be but, is that really how the justice system should work? To allow a juvenile who recently robbed a store only get a slap on the wrist? Not comprehending that there are consequences for their actions and how what they have done affects the victims.
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
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.
The problem of dealing with juvenile justice has plagued are country for years, since the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899. Prior to that development, delinquent juveniles had to be processed through the adult justic3e system which gave much harsher penalties. By 1945, separate juvenile courts existed in every single state. Similar to the adult system, all through most of the 20th century, the juvenile justice system was based upon a medical/rehabilitative representation. The new challenges of the juvenile court were to examine, analyze, and recommend treatment for offenders, not to deliver judgment fault or fix responsibility. The court ran under the policy of “parens patriae” that intended that the state would step in and act as a parent on behalf of a disobedient juvenile. Actions were informal and a juvenile court judge had a vast sum of discretion in the nature of juvenile cases, much like the discretion afforded judges in adult unlawful settings until the 1970s. In line with the early juvenile court’s attitude of shielding youth, juvenile offenders’ position was often in reformatories or instruction schools that were intended, in speculation, to keep them away from the terrible influences of society and to encourage self-control through accurate structure and very unsympathetic discipline. Opposing to the fundamental theory, all through the first part of the century, the places that housed juveniles were frequently unsafe and unhealthy places where the state warehoused delinquent, deserted, and deserted children for unclear periods. Ordinary tribulations included lack of medical care, therapy programs, and even sometimes food. Some very poor circumstances continue even today.
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...
First off sentencing juveniles without parole should not be allowed to happen because the juveniles brain has not yet matured enough and they don’t think before they act. In the article “Juveniles don’t deserve life sentences” by Gail Garinger he asserts “young people are biologically different from adults. Brain imagining studies reveal that regions of
For example, a 12 year old kid, Lionel Tate, beat and killed a 6 year old girl to death because he was imitating professional wrestlers he saw on TV. Life in prison without parole or even going to an adult prison is extreme for a 12 year old. Many kids who make it out of the adult system end up worse than when they went in because they come out as hardened criminals. In another case, Nathaniel Brazill, who shot and killed his teacher at the age of 13. The crime was heinous, but the issue with convicting teenagers as adults is that during the teenage years, gray matter in the brain which supports all our thinking and emotions is purged at a rate of 1 to 2 percent a year. This occurs in the frontal lobe of our brain, which controls impulses, risk-taking, and self-control. Teenagers brains work differently and are not yet fully functioning compared to adult brains, evidence enough juveniles should not be tried as adults. However many prosecutors and the families of victims claim that teenagers know it is wrong to kill and the courts need to crack down on these cases in order to send a message to teenegaers across the US to not commit murder, or they could face life without parole. That may be true however, giving kids the message that they are not curable or worthy of a second chance sends out the wrong message and makes other countries in the world look down on the US. Also, they claim that many teenagers commit “thrill kills”, and nothing is wrong with them mentally. They also state that if brain development was the reason, that kids should kill at the same rate as adults. Their main argument is that the murders leave families in ruins and forever scar them when they lose a loved one. Once again many of these arguments are true, but kids are less mature and more vulnerable to peer pressure because their characters are still forming. Children
There is no doubt that youth justice practises have changed throughout the years, these changes have been made to adapt to the new challenges that present themselves today. Crime in general, but particularly youth crime is a consistent problem for society.
When a juvenile or someone under the age of eighteen commits a crime, sometimes they think it is fun because they got away with it. If and when they do get caught, they should be convicted as adults especially if they are caught committing: murder, rape, or are in possession of a controlled substance or drug. Some people say, “Prison changes a man”; if a juvenile goes to prison they will learn not to hurt people and become a possible asset to society while they are in prison. Even if a juvenile were not to be sentenced as an adult they should at least have to go through some kind of adult prison sentence even if they were to have parole.
Traditionally, there has been little research on or interest in the impact of female crime in modern society. In addition, juvenile crime rates are on the rise, which combine for a void of research or information on female juvenile offenders. In general, crime rates for women offenders have risen since the 1990's. Increasing numbers of young women are also offending at higher rates. In a 1996 U.S. Department of Justice Report, the number of arrests of young women had doubled between 1989 and 1993. Twenty percent of all juvenile arrests were committed by girls, an increase of 87 percent. However, according to The National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools, males are far more likely to admit to criminal involvement than are females. For example, 12 percent of males and 4 percent of females reported carrying a hidden weapon other than a pocketknife in the past year (Wilson, p.150). There are several theories for this rise in crime proposed by modern feminists, including that the introduction of women into traditional male roles prompted women to commit increasingly dangerous and violent crimes. However, this paper will rely on Meda Chesney-Lind's theories from The Female Offender.
I do not think it is a good idea to lock juveniles up in prisons with adults. For a child to set down and plan a murder for instance, there would have to be some kind of deep emotional problem. On the other side of this, if the child knows right from wrong and he can sit down and plan a murder, then you could say if he is old enough to kill someone then he is old enough to die. The juvenile criminal is rooted much deeper than right from wrong. It starts back from when they are small children. Most of them are usually outsiders or outcasts. Who can you hold fault for that other than society? If juveniles don't fit in with the popular kids in school they are considered an outcast. Even the teachers hold some responsibility to this. It is the popular kids that get to do everything and the quiet ones are left out and unnoticed.
We need to stop treating inmate like children, and treat them more like the adults that they are, and in the juvenile justice system, the repeat offenders need to be treated more like their adult counterparts, because otherwise they will be in the system for a very long time, because they will not learn that crime does not pay, but that being a good citizen does. Isn’t it the goal of the justice system to try to keep people from committing crime, and if they do that those people should be punished? Is it not the goal to have those in the system get rehabilitated so that they are not repeat offenders, and if they are repeat offenders, that we should make it harder on those that are repeat offenders so that they learn to stay out of
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