More handpicked essays just for you.
Should juveniles be sentenced to life in prision open essay
Should juveniles be sentenced to life in prision open essay
Race issues in juvenile justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
When discussing who has the power when it is time to decide whether a juvenile will be processed in adult court, there are a few important people in the justice system that decide those facts. The prosecution is the first to make a ruling on how someone should be tried. Since they are the first line of sentencing for all defendant they get to decide what sentence is the correct one. This can become dangerous when the prosecution pursues the harshest of sentences without consideration to the age of the defendant. The second most influential party in the process is the juvenile’s parent(s). Since the defendant is still a minor they are unable to make decisions on their own in the court room, so that means that the parents get the final say on important court room decisions like plea bargains. The other two parties with power in the process is the judge and jury in the court room. This power comes from the responsibility to make the final decision on the defendants guilty and if the proposed sentence is justified.
One of the most controversial factors when discussing juveniles being waved to adult court is how race play a factor.
…show more content…
The risk of potentially receiving life without parole as a teenage is an extreme and effective deterrent, because it is easy to understand and at that age it is easy to associate clear actions with clear punishment. The other reason why it is a beneficially tactic is because there are many different circumstances that can arise in the criminal justice system. Having the ability to try juveniles in adult court allows the criminal justice a wide arsenal when evaluation how to try juveniles. Even though it seems harsh, it is necessary in order to make sure that there are no gaps in the system that may allow punishments to be up to anyone’s interpretation making the deterrent
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 focus of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, rather than to imprison and punish like the systems adult counterpart. According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. This has lead to the development of a separate justice system for juveniles that was initially designed to assist troubled juveniles providing them with protection, treatment, and guidance. When performing as it is designed and up to the initial intentions, the juvenile court balances rehabilitation (treatment) of the offender with suitable sanctions when necessary such as incarceration. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “how can we help the child”, “why did the child commit the crime” to “was the crime committed”. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. The prerequisites for transfer to adult court are the duty to protect the public from violent youths, serious crime, and the lack of rehabilitation chance from the juvenile court. According to Flesch (2004) many jurisdictions handle the issue of serious juvenile crime by charging juveniles as adults. Charging a juvenile as an adult is done by a method which is called waiver to adult court. This waiver allows adult criminal court to have the power to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles and handle the juvenile’s case as an adult’s case would be tried. According to Flesch (2004) a juvenile is both tried and if convicted of the crime the juvenile will be sentenced as an adult when his or her case is waived from the juvenile court. Waiver to adult court initially was viewe...
In the United States, each year, there are numerous juvenile delinquents who are given mandatory life prison sentences. This paper will explain how a troubled boy at the age of 15 winds up being convicted, receiving one of the harshest punishments in the United States, and what actions may prevent future occurrence of this event happening to the lives of other delinquent youth.
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 inappropriate or unnecessary use of incarceration is “expensive, ineffective, and inhumane,” and initiates a “cycle of juvenile reoffending” (Bala et. al, 2009). A study conducted by Mann (2014) exemplifies this cycle of youth reoffending. The youth interviewed demonstrated that despite a stay in sentenced custody, the threat of future punishment was not enough to deter from future offences. Cook and Roesch (2012) demonstrate that youth have developmental limitations that can impair their involvement in the justice system; for example, not understanding their sentencing options properly or their competence to stand trial. Therefore, deterrence as a justification for youth incarceration is ineffective, as incarceration proves to be not a strong enough deterrent. Alternative methods such as extrajudicial measures and community-based sanctions were considered more effective (Cook & Roesch,
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.
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
In the last 42 years little to no changes have been made to correct the standards that govern punitive measures towards juvenile delinquency. Today juvenile law is governed by state and many states have enacted a juvenile code. However, in numerous cases, juveniles are transferred to adult court when juvenile courts waive or relinquish jurisdiction. Adolescents should not be tried in the adult court system or sentenced to adult penitentiary's on account of: teen brains are not mature which causes a lack of understanding towards the system, incarceration in an adult facility increases juvenile crime, and children that are sentenced to adult prison are vulnerable to abuse and rape.
There has always been controversies as to whether juvenile criminals should be tried as adults or not. Over the years more and more teenagers have been involved in committing crimes. In some cases the juries have been too rough on the teens. Trying teens as adults can have a both positive and negative views. For example, teens that are detained can provide information about other crimes, can have an impact in social conditions, and serve as experience; however, it can be negative because teens are still not mature enough for that experience, they are exposed to adult criminals; and they will lose out on getting an education.
Several studies conducted to determine impacts of transfers of cases from juvenile courts to adult criminal courts for trial and potential sentencing indicate higher recidivism rates among the offenders. This is because of the notion the youth possess on the strictness on the adult courts. They believe trials on these courts end up in harsh punishment for offenders. In a way, adult punishments scare youth away from committing major crimes. However, studies show that short term punishments imposed on young offenders in adult courts propagates the offenders to commit even more crimes that are serious after their sentence terminates. This results from interactions with other crimes bearer behind bars who are convicted for far much worse crimes than they are. In addition the young offenders continued to commit crimes at a higher rate and more often than earlier on (Shari, page 1).
In juvenile court, the judge must decide if the teen gets tried as an adult or minor. If the juvenile gets sent to a juvenile detention center for murder they will live their lives there until they are twenty one, but if tried as an adult they will serve so many years in prison. There is a grey area of law for certain teens that commit serious crimes. In this case of the grey law, each state gets to decide upon the particular state how they person is tried. For most cases pertaining to the juvenile courts are case by case bases. Many believe that it isn’t fair for the teens to be locked up with adults. The U.S. House of Representatives made the Juvenile Justice Act encouraging states to find alternatives to having the teens go through such a process with people much older than themselves (Locked Up…).
There is a great deal of controversy over the trying and sentencing of juvenile offenders today. Many will argue that because the severity of Juvenile crimes has risen, the severity of its consequences should rise; however, no matter how serious the crime is, juvenile offenders tried as adults receive far worse than they deserve. The majority of Juveniles tried as adults are hardly given any form of human rights. Adult jails are not the environment children should have to experience, especially those sentenced for misdemeanors and nonviolent crimes. There are other solutions to reducing juvenile crime. It does not take adult court to straighten out kids on the wrong path. Most children are not even able to recognize that what they had done is wrong. There may be no perfect solution to reducing juvenile crime, but there are ways far more effective than adult trying and sentencing.
Today?s court system is left with many difficult decisions. One of the most controversial being whether to try juveniles as adults or not. With the number of children in adult prisons and jails rising rapidly, questions are being asked as to why children have been committing such heinous crimes and how will they be stopped. The fact of the matter is that it is not always the children's fault for their poor choices and actions; they are merely a victim of their environment or their parents. Another question asked is how young is too young. Children who are too young to see an R rated film unaccompanied are being sent to adult prisons. The only boundaries that seem to matter when it comes to being an adult are laws that restrain kids from things such as alcohol, pornography, and other materials seen as unethical. Children that are sent to adult prison are going to be subjected to even more unprincipled ideas and scenes. When children can be sent to jail for something as minor as a smash and grab burglary, the judicial system has errors. The laws that send juveniles to adult prisons are inhumane, immoral, and unjust. Kids are often incompetent, which leads to unfair trials. Adult prisons are also very dangerous for minors, and in many cases this leads to more juvenile crimes.
That’s why we don’t permit 15-year-olds to drink, drive, vote or join the military” (qtd. in Billitteri). There is adolescent-development research according to Hambrick, J. and Ellem, J that has shown “children do not possess the same capacity as adults to think thru the consequences of their behaviors, control their responses or avoid peer pressure” (qtd. in Lyons). There are some very good points made in the argument against sentencing youth as adults but I still have a hard time agreeing with peer pressure or impulse control as a reason to be held in a juvenile center for less than a few years for murder. Ryan, L. uses the example of a report released by the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention on “Juvenile Transfer Laws : An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency?” This report found that prosecuting youths as adults has little or no effect on juvenile crime.” She uses this information and backs it up with the report showing “youths prosecuted as adults are more likely to re-offend than youths handled in the juvenile justice system” (qtd. in Katel). This is definitely a new perspective, but I still stand with my first take on the subject. “We know young people can commit serious crimes, and the consequences are no less tragic” (qtd in