Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Between morality and cognitive development
Explain the relationship between morality and cognitive development
Juvenile and parental responsibility
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Between morality and cognitive development
Suppose you are a parent of a wonderful child that you have trained to use a gun in an emergency. One day you give them some chores and that once wonderful child causes some trouble. Fuming, you storm out of the house to cool down. Once you’ve calmed down, you walk back towards your house. Meanwhile, your child, angry for having to do some chores, remembers his training and grabs his gun. Just as you walk in the front door...Bang! Who is responsible? The child? The parents? This question is sweeping the nation. “Should minors be legally held responsible for their actions?” Since the early 2000’s, the US has been faced with the problem of whether or not minors should be responsible for their crimes. I believe they should. This is because adults and kids should be tried the same. Kids are old enough to know the consequences of a crime. Gun responsibility is a contributing reason to why kids should be held accountable for their actions. I truly believe that minors should be responsible for their crimes and know the consequences of the crimes committed. I hope you will too.
Many adults are treated unfairly compared to minors in sentencing for crime. An adult and a minor could
…show more content…
But, I strongly disagree. According to The Association for Psychological Science, “Scientists have found that babies aged between 19 and 21 months understand fairness and can apply it in different situations...” The Association for Psychological Science also states that “Children know the difference between right and wrong before they reach the age of two…” This shows that we could be trying kids as young as two as adults. What it basically boils down to is that the brain may not be entirely mature until 25, but more importantly the brain can understand the difference between right and wrong at an early
However, the human brain fully matures around the mid-20s and early 30s. With the brain developing at a later age, many people have difficulty with impulsive behavior and are more prone to peer pressure. Laurence Steinberg stated that “Adult punishment is partial for a child that lacks comprehension of their acts”. He suggested a separation of the age group of under 12 and ages 12 to 16. In spite of the offense, children under 12 ought to be tried as minors. “Children between the ages of 12 and 16 should be viewed on a case by case basis depending on the competence of the
Thousands of kid criminals in the United States have been tried as adults and sent to prison (Equal Justice Initiative). The debate whether these kids should be tried as adults is a huge controversy. The decision to try them or to not try them as an adult can change their whole life. “Fourteen states have no minimum age for trying children as adults” (Equal Justice Initiative). Some people feel that children are too immature to fully understand the severity of their actions. People who are for kids to be tried as adults feel that if they are old enough to commit the crime, then they are old enough to understand what they are doing. There are people who feel that children should only be tried as adults depending on the crime.
Do you think juveniles should be held responsible for their actions? For many years, children have been sentenced to death without trial. Young people are not capable of making rational decisions. Hence, children are restricted from doing many things. For instance, children under the age eighteen are not allowed by law to vote, and work for a certain number of hours. However, when it comes to sentencing children as adults to the death penalty, it is not illegal. If children are viewed differently from adults by law, then why is that not the case when being trialed? Moreover, children are not yet matured to receive such punishments. Likewise, juveniles should not be sentenced to death, because they are still
Sara Goudarzi of LiveScience.com says in her article “Why Teens Don't Care”, “Children start taking into account other people's feelings around the age of five. But the ability develops well beyond this age, the new research suggests” (Goudarzi). Children at age five can understand other people’s feelings and as well as knowing what is right and wrong, they understand it's bad to commit crimes because it can hurt others. These teens who have committed crimes learned right from wrong at a young age and this is something that is not biological; it's a learned trait. Therefore, they should know that committing a crime is wrong and there are not any other excuses. If five year olds can understand feelings, then there is no excuse for these juveniles. If it is true that brain tissue is lost throughout the development of the brain and knowing right from wrong is learned from outside resources, then the boy or girl who murders, steals, etc. will not lose this ability. As they commit the crime, they are fully aware that what they're doing is wrong.
For decades, the contentious issue on whether or not juveniles should be tried as adults for heinous crimes has stirred up a gargantuan amount of disputation. However, juveniles are taken into account as “children” only under certain circumstances. When the situation comes to smoking, drinking, voting and watching rated-R movies, juveniles are merely children. However, when the circumstances are absolute, juries are so compelled to have children be tried as adults when juveniles commit severe crimes that courts go to the extent of sentencing juveniles to long-term punishments. Nonetheless, juveniles who are tried as adults arise significantly more problems than they had before, thus, juveniles should not be tried as adults in spite of that it causes so much controversy and is
There is much controversy over whether or not minors should be tried and convicted as adults; most often with cases involving murder.
If they are capable enough to load a gun or grab a weapon to kill someone they know the crime they are going to commit as well as the consequences for their actions. Kids are given a lot of responsibility at very young ages such as choose what they want to study or work or do when they grow up so why they are not mature enough to know the consequences of violent crimes such as armed robbery or murder (Should Children Be Tried).the real answer is that they are mature enough to comprehend they just think that they will not receive harsh punishment but instead just to go to a juvenile camp to be rehabilitated. Now days the punishment that the young children get are getting harder and harder on them such as death or life without parole. People says that the criminals should be apart from the society, regardless of their age (Sentencing Juveniles to
"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time." -- David Grusin and Morgan Ames Much controversy exists on the question of whether a juvenile criminal should be punished to the same extent as an adult. Those who commit capital crimes, including adolescents, should be penalized according to the law. Age should not be a factor in the case of serious crimes.
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.
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
In my opinion, I do feel that juveniles should be tried as an adult depending on the crime. I feel if a child decides to make a huge life changing decision they should have to suffer the consequences. If their crime is something little and they don't have a criminal background, then no I don't think they should be.
On the opposing side, children should be around guns in the first place because they should be locked away and stored in a safe place away from children’s reach. For older children, you have to take even better precautions because they tend to know more since they have been exposed to more and are able to understand much better than a toddler. But you can’t keep everything from children because they are not always in your own eyesight or under the same type of supervision that a parent would give their own
Their brains develop in different stages and they learn skills that they need to learn at certain time. 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 add that as a juvenile court judge, she has seen how that juveniles can change and may become rehabilitated. For example, the court has already struck down death penalty and the life in prison without parole for juveniles or for young offenders convicted of non-homicide. According to the article, “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life In Prison,” Paul Garinger states that “Brain imaging studies reveal that the regions of the adolescent brain are responsible for controlling thoughts, actions, and emotions are not fully developed. They can not be held to the same standards when they commit terrible crimes.” If this is true, there is no a reason to treat juveniles as
Juvenile offenders should not be tried as adults because there are differences between a teenager and adult. A teenager is not mature as an adult. Some teenagers are capable to change their behavior and are capable to recognize their own mistakes. It is a huge mistake for juveniles offenders to be tried as adults and send them to adult court and prison . There are many factors why they should not be tried as adult.
Rhetoric in Ancient Greece It wasn’t until the rise of the Ancient Greek’s democracy that the rhetoric became an art that was studied and developed thoroughly even that the Mesopotamians and the Ancient Egyptians were both valued the ability to speak with expression and knowledge. It is believed that the Ancient Greece is the birthplace of the classical rhetoric in 5 BC since at that time the democracy was accessible to every free male citizen, therefore that every male had to be ready to stand up and speak to influence the public to vote or against to a certain piece of legislation which is depended on his rhetorical ability. Sophists were the travelling teachers who taught the citizens in public spaces how to speak and debate in an influential