Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults Essay

Article 37 of the United Nations convention on the rights of children, ratified by every country in the world (except the United states and Somalia), expressly prohibits capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18. Under many laws, juveniles do not commit crimes but rather delinquent acts. However, some of these acts would constitute serious crimes if they were to be committed by adults. The debate remains to focus on whether or not juveniles are mature enough to see the consequences of their actions, and if they should be punished accordingly in adult courts. Another important consideration in this argument is the fact that juveniles in youth courts are being punished too mildly, and the fact that juveniles brains are not developed enough to understand their actions.

The main argument of the debate against juveniles being tried as adults is maturity. At the age of 16, one is

gifted the right to drive a car, consent to sexual intercourse and leave school. The government has determined that teenagers are mature and responsible enough to make these decisions by themselves. Many argue that the cognitive development of a young person is not complete until the early twenties, therefore as teenagers, they do not understand the long-term consequences of bad actions. However, if the government trusts the cognitive function of teenagers to drive and have sex, why is it that when murder is in the question, teenagers are suddenly exempt? Most teenagers have the ability to distinguish right from wrong, especially in the case of murder. Teenagers are mature enough to make important decisions regarding their own lives. They have to deal with the repercussions for their own actions in this instance, yet when murder is involved they are suddenly exempt? Victims and the families of victims deserve a sense of justice, regardless of whether or not the juvenile offender understood the long-term consequences of their crime. It is an insult to the life of the victim to give such a short sentence. For the loss of life, juveniles deserve the maximum penalty available to them. Consequently, if the juveniles are given a light sentence, then they are more likely to re-offend in the future.

In 2008, over 2 million youth were arrested in the United States, and 95% of these people were not accused of a serious felony. In some states of America, only two years imprisonment is seen as an acceptable punishment for murder. No matter the age, murder is murder, and consequences should be the same for all those who take the lives of other humans. The offenders should be punished appropriately, based not on the age, but the severity of the crime. James Patrick Bulger was abducted, tortured and murdered by two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. Both of the boys, given that they were underage, were sentenced to custody until they turned 18. In June 2001, the boys were released under new identities, despite a psychiatric report saying Venables knew unequivocally the difference between right and wrong. If this boy had the cognitive function to know that what he did was wrong, then he should be punished accordingly. To this day, Venables and Thompson are protected by the UK government, even after they tortured and killed an innocent little boy. Youth courts are far too gentle on their sentencing, and the case of Jon Venables is a clear example of this. The boys needed to be punished far more severely to properly ensure that justice has been served for James Bulger.

Serious juvenile offenders need to be tried as adults to reduce recidivism rates. Research shows that recidivism is affected positively by longer sentences. Smith and Gartin (1989) found that being arrested reduced recidivism amongst juvenile male offenders, particularly first-time offenders. A 2003 study of serious juvenile offenders incarcerated in a maximum security facility found a “negative 3 relationship between their sentence severity and self-reported intent to re-offend and a positive correlation between their self-reported intent and the number of offenses they actually committed after their release”. Researchers found evidence that these offenders made “some explicit calculations about the advantages and disadvantages of committing future crimes”. Jon Venables continues to have his identity protected by the British government to this day. In 2010 Venables was jailed again for downloading and distributing dozens of indecent images of children. Venables still poses a risk to the public. He was meant to have been monitored on his release. To build up all those images on his laptop is unbelievable and just proves that he hasn't been getting monitored at all. The youth justice system of Britain has failed James Bulger and his family. They deserve the right to see that justice has been achieved, but instead they see reports of Jon Venables reoffending and are constantly haunted by the thought of him harming another boy. If Jon Venables had received adequate punishment for his crime, perhaps he may have been rehabilitated. Instead, Jon Venables continues to re-offend and has proved to be a serious threat to the safety of his community.

However, we must also consider that 96% of kids who commit severe crimes live in an abusive home, have been abused, or live in a violent neighbourhood.

There needs to be more intervention to prevent these juveniles from committing crimes. Throwing these children in jail would take away much of their hope of rehabilitation. There is also a possibility that those in adult jails would come out as a hardened criminal, even more likely to re-offend. However, while I can consider this point of view, juveniles must spend time in appropriate punishment and realise the true consequences of their actions. We can not always use a child’s upbringing as an excuse for taking someone's life.

In conclusion, juveniles should be tried as adults as they are capable of thinking and acting like an adult, and therefore need to be punished accordingly. They are punished to mildly for the severity of the crimes they commit. Therefore, there must need to be more intervention to prevent these juveniles from committing crimes, and give them the future they need to grow to their full

potential.