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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 death penalty places the focus on the legal and not the human. Each year in the U.S. children as young as 13 are sentenced to life without parole, there are about 3,000 children sentenced to juvenile life without parole in the United States. But permitting life without parole on children, does threaten the child’s rights. It is the human law that should permit those who commit their crimes before the age of eighteen to not have life without parole.
“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
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.
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
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.