English II Final Essay Prompt 4 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. In the documentary, Making a Murderer, a young man named Brendan Dassey is convicted for assisting in the murder of Teresa Halbach. He …show more content…
Since the ban, it has happened 22 times, 21 of them for 17 year olds who ended up turning 18 before the execution, and one much younger, who killed his family. Was it a right decision that the supreme court made? Minors have an entire life full of changing experiences ahead of them, and it seems “cruel and unusual” to take that from a child. Generally, it’s respected as a good decision to prevent the death sentence on a minor, but there are some questions to be asked. What if the minor is a mass murderer or commits treason? Those seem like good reasons to use the death sentence. However, children learn a lot better than adults and can easily change their ways or attitudes in prison. The minors could still contribute positively to the world, and the death sentence would prevent that completely. When it comes to minors, we try to keep a balance between our logistic and moral views on the issue of their imprisonment. Usually, we end up thinking morally, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Children raised in harsh conditions or without adequate parenting could stay bad forever, or grow up to become a great person. A huge slip up shouldn’t take their life. We could think that the children could stay bad forever and become an even bigger problem later in life, but prison time works well to deter against that. The supreme court was right. It’s completely wrong to sentence a minor to
“We can all say we’re never going to commit a crime, but that doesn’t mean you won’t be accused.” The trailer of Netflix’s series, Making a Murderer, begins with this statement. Before viewers have even begun watching the series, this quote prods them to go down a scary thought path. Where would you find the strength to stay hopeful while in jail? How would you prove your innocence? Would you succumb to the pressure of pleading guilty for the chance of early parole? The first seven seconds of the trailer captures the viewers’ attention, and from there they are hooked. Netflix creates the infamous good vs. evil scenario in this series. Steven Avery and his family are portrayed as the poor and innocent citizens, while the investigators and prosecutors
I think that it is unfair that a minor could be killed for something when they aren’t even allowed to vote. Those younger than 18 are not allowed to vote or be on juries, or enjoy any of the other responsibilities and privileges of adulthood because the government considers their judgment unformed. So why would you execute them if you think their judgment isn’t up to par? To the government their judgment isn’t up to par, so don’t tell minors that they should know right from wrong when the government believes that they can’t think right yet. A minor should know not to murder someone, but maybe their mind just hasn’t quite developed that sense of right or wrong yet.
Day after day in this country there is a debate going on about the death penalty and whether we as people have the right to decide the fate of another persons life. When we examine this issue we usually consider those we are arguing about to be older men and women who are more than likely hardened criminals with rap sheets longer than the height we stand (Farley & Willwerth, 1998). They have made a career of crime, committing it rather than studying it, and somewhere along the line a jury of their peers decided enough was enough. They were handed down the most severe and most final punishment of them all, death. Behind all of the controversy that this issue raises lies a different group of people that are not so often brought into the lime light, juveniles.
Although the death penalty alone cannot bring back the life of those who have been murdered, it can serve as ultimate justice for the victims and their families. The deterrence of the death penalty can save lives. While opinions abound on both sides of the fence, in the use of the death penalty on juveniles, no one can argue with the fact that the voices of those murdered cannot be heard. Juveniles may not have fully developed brains, as Raeburn argues, but this is not an adequate excuse to dismiss the death penalty. American society cannot afford to babysit murderers, nor can they rehabilitate them. The end of the innocence begins when an innocent life is taken, and the sanctity of life is held defenseless.
Schulz present’s in her article that “Making a Murder” attempts to point out that it’s concern over the jury finding with certainty that Steven Avery had committed the murder when there is some evidence that he did not commit the
It’s a known fact that kids aren’t to be trusted, they are young, and foolish, labeled too immature to know better. There are many sides to be considered when dealing with the severity of choosing the correct punishment for teenage offenders. Controversy is shown when a federal judge determines it is “unconstitutional” for a juvenile to be definitively sentenced life in prison. In Correction One’s May 27, 2017 article, “Federal judge tosses out life sentences for DC sniper” written by Matthew Barakat, explains judge’s final call Lee Boyd Malvo and that he was entitled to a new sentence as Malvo was only 17 when he was arrested in 2002. Malvo murdered 10 people and injured over a dozen, but his age and immaturity say it is unethical to waste away life in prison. Many agree that a guaranteed lifetime rotting in a cell is beyond devastating for a young criminal condemned to an empty life of solitude, but 10 lives were stolen, immaturity is not excusable.
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.
Today, we live in a society faced with many problems, including crime and the fear that it creates. In the modern era, juveniles have become a part of society to be feared, not rehabilitated. The basis of the early juvenile justice system was to rehabilitate and create safe havens for wayward youth. This is not the current philosophy, although the U.S. is one of the few remaining countries to execute juveniles. Presently, our nation is under a presidential administration that strongly advocates the death penalty, including the execution of juveniles. The media and supporters of capital punishment warn of the "superpredator," the juvenile with no fear, remorse, or conscience. Opponents of this view encourage the idea that another death is only revenge, not deterrence. We will examine the rights allotted to juvenile offenders, and the punishments inflicted upon them for violations of the law.
Juveniles should not receive mandatory life in prison because their brains aren’t fully developed which is why we treat them differently from adults. Just because they commit a crime does not make them older, they should be treated the same way regardless of the crime. In the United States, we grow up in a violent loving culture with weapons being shown in movies, talked about in music, TV shows, and even cartoons. Not everybody grows up in perfect living conditions, and because they are still young they are influenced by what they see and experience around them. When kids commit a crime, it shouldn’t go unpunished however; they shouldn’t be sentenced to life.
Crimes in America can be vicious and brutal, often leading to long, draw out trials, but it is only fair if you charge the right man. The only way that it can be fair is if you go by the facts and not the appearance of the accused. Many trials in America have men of color pointed out to be criminals. Many crimes are committed for a reason but many people label it as unknown. People are racist especially against colored people, they believe that white men are innocent but that is not always true. They always turn against the colored people for many crimes that could have been committed by a white man. The novel,Monster and the documentary “Murder On A Sunday Morning” are the same because,both cases have similar charges,both crimes were taken in a public place,and the both consist of racism either by the jury or police.
Sentencing them at the age of twelve will show there is nothing that can be done to help the child once they become a member of society. It will banish the child and not give them an expression that is placed with peers, hard work and time could promote a positive change in the child. The sentence could tell the child as well as society that this child will be rejected and there is no hope they may change their life. So then what do you expect from the child once released into the world, after being held in jail with adults for the entire life there punishment must be appropriate to the age and legal status in order for the punishment to fit the crime and age for rehabilitation. I don’t question the right of society to justice against a child that committed murder.
Being eighteen years of age is when one is officially and legally regarded as an adult. As an adult, one is deemed to incorporate the capacity to appreciate certain rights that every individual is given alongside the necessity to fulfill certain obligations. At this age, individuals gain privileges, such as the ability to purchase tobacco products, voting rights, purchase fireworks and get tattoos. However, although being of age sounds great, there is one privilege that many do not desire to ever attain, the ability to be held responsible for your own actions. In the year 2012, the Supreme Court made the decision to ban mandatory life imprisonment without parole for juveniles. Nevertheless, their decision was utterly unacceptable. Because of this new rule, jurists, prosecutors, lawyers and just about any adult, forcibly must be lenient towards juveniles who cannot be justified when they commit atrocious crimes.
Simmons Supreme Court case decided sentencing the death penalty to juveniles was unconstitutional. I believe juveniles should not be eligible for the death penalty, agreeing with the Supreme Court’s decision. Capital punishment is used as deterrence against murder. Most adults would not dare to commit such a crime out of fear of the death penalty. However, the death penalty does not work the same way, as an effective deterrent, in juvenile populations. (Hansen) The evidence supports the Supreme Court’s decision to declare the death penalty for juveniles to be unconstitutional. Why have a punishment if it will not be an effective deterrent against crime? Juveniles instead need to be rehabilitated and educated during their incarceration. Rehabilitation and education could bring about an early release or a more enjoyable life if serving life
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?"
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