Page
1
of 2
ZOOM
Flamon1Kenecia FlamonMr. Jason ArmstrongENG 1123-0228 September 2017Mischievous MinorsEqual justice is an important part of the judicial system in America. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution enlightens the phrase, (Equal justice under law). As some may read the phrase on the United States Supreme Court Building, questions about juvenile comeuppance are on the rise. One may ask, “Should an accused juvenile offender be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole or lethal injection?” People may argue retribution should be the same for all that commit heinous crimes, but in America’s modern judicial system, one punishment does not fit all criminals,especially juvenile offenders. As a people, Americans believe in justice and being tried fairly. When a crime committed by a minor is extreme enough to be transferred to an adult court, a judge waives all the
…show more content…
TheUnited States Constitutionhas amendmentsthat prohibitthe minors from having an unfairtrial.A juvenile offender being sentenced to life without parole will eliminate the worry of recidivism, committing the crime repeatedly when released from prison. The minor would eventually go back into the same environment and carry on criminal mischief. The chances of the
Flamon2minor participating in previous truancy are likely when the child’s life is surrounded by violence.Society thinksthis is the prime example of why juvenile offenders should not be released when an extreme crime is committed.A minor does not have the same mental maturity as an adult;therefore,a juvenile offender being
Within the last five years, violent offenses by children have increased 68 percent, crimes such as: murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Honestly, with these figures, it is not surprising at all that the Juveniles Courts focus less on the children in danger, and focus more on dangerous children. This in fact is most likely the underlying reasoning behind juveniles being tried as adults by imposing harsher and stiffer sentences. However, these policies fail to recognize the developmental differences between young people and
The article titled “ Juvenile Justice from Both Sides of the Bench”, published by PBS, and written by Janet Tobias and Michael Martin informs readers on numerous judges’ opinions on the juveniles being tried as adults. Judge Thomas Edwards believed that juveniles should not be tried as adults because they are still not mature enough to see the consequences of their actions and have a chance to minimize this behavior through rehabilitation programs. Judge LaDoris Cordell argues that although we shouldn’t give up on juveniles and instead help them be a part of society, however, she believes that some sophisticated teens that create horrible crimes should be tried as adults. Bridgett Jones claims that teens think differently than adults and still
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.
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.
The historical development of the juvenile justice system in the United States is one that is focused on forming and separating trying juveniles from adult counterparts. One of the most important aspects is focusing on ensuring that there is a level of fairness and equality with respect to the cognitive abilities and processes of juveniles as it relates to committing crime. Some of the most important case legislation that would strengthen the argument in regard to the development of the juvenile justice system is related to the reform of the justice system during the turn of the 19th century. Many juveniles were unfortunately caught in the crosshairs of being tried as adults and ultimately receiving punishments not in line with their ability to understand their actions or be provided a second chance.
There are millions of adults in federal prison, but The United States is the only country in the world that condemns children to die in prison (Pequeneza, 2014). It’s sad to think about children being sentenced to life in prison, and frankly it is a disturbing and a scary fact to face. However, in recent years the U.S Supreme Court has made it illegal to charge juveniles with life sentencing for anything less than murder (Pequeneza, 2014). This new law gives children a second chance at life when they are finally released from prison. Many children are forced to be in a household that is not suitable for a developing child. Children are mistreated, neglected, abused, and other factors. These unfit situations that children are in make them more likely to become violent, and maybe end up in juvenile
Vandergoot determines that the reasoning capacity of an adolescent, the ability to make legal decisions, and filter unnecessary information is unclear to a juvenile in the justice system; the vagueness of youth stepping into the courts prevents them from fully participating in the justice system. ( Vandergoot, 2006). As a result of this impreciseness youth encounter Vandergoot concludes a separate justice system allocated for youth to adhere to adolescent needs. Vandergoot discusses the Youth Criminal Justice Act a justice system devised to adhere to youth needs. She summarizes the system that benefits young offenders in contrast to adult offenders.
Serious crimes such as murder, burglary and rape have raised questions as to whether the young offenders should face severe punitive treatment or the normal punitive measures in juvenile courts. Many would prefer the juveniles given harsh punishment in order to discourage other young people from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to these particular offenders. However, results from previous studies indicate such punitive measures were neither successful nor morally acceptable. Instead, the solutions achieved have unfairly treated the youths and compromised the society status (Kristin, page 1).
In 1899, the nation’s first juvenile court for youth under the age of 16 was established in Chicago to provide rehabilitation rather than punishment. By 1925, following the Chicago model, all but two states had juvenile courts whose goals were to turn youth into productive citizens utilizing treatment that included warnings, probation, and training school confinement(Cox et al. 2014, p.2). Treatment lasted until the child was “cured” or turned 21. Although judges spoke with the offending children and decided upon the punishment, the lack of established rules and poor rehabilitation led to unfair treatment. In 1967 “ U.S. Supreme Court case of In re Gault held that juveniles were entitled to the same constitutional due process rights as adults, beginning a national reform in juvenile justice and the system was repaired to afford children many of the same rights that adults have in court” (Cox et al. 2014, p.4). Also, state legislatures passed laws to crack down on juvenile crime, as recently, states have attempted strike a balance in their approach to juvenile justice systems as research suggests that locking youth away in large, secure juvenile facilities is ineffective treatment towards different genders in which it doesn’t provide appropriate rehabilitation.
A deep look into juveniles in adult prisons. Touch bases on several smaller issues that contribute to juveniles being in and effects of adult prisons. The United States Bureau of Prisons handles two hundred and thirty-nine juveniles and their average age is seventeen. Execution of juveniles, The United States is one of only six countries to execute juveniles. There are sixty-eight juveniles sitting on death row for crimes committed as juveniles. Forty-three of those inmates are minorities. People, who are too young to vote, drink alcohol, or drive are held to the same standard of responsibility as adults. In prisons, they argue that the juveniles become targets of older, more hardened criminals. Brian Stevenson, Director of the Alabama Capital Resource Center said, “We have totally given up in the idea of reform of rehabilitation for the very young. We are basically saying we will throw those kids away. Leading To Prison Juvenile Justice Bulletin Report shows that two-thirds of juveniles apprehended for violent offenses were released or put on probation. Only slightly more than one-third of youths charged with homicide was transferred to adult criminal court. Little more than one out of every one hundred New York youths arrested for muggings, beatings, rape and murder ended up in a correctional institution. Another report showed a delinquent boy has to be arrested on average thirteen times before the court will act more restrictive than probation. Laws began changing as early as 1978 in New York to try juveniles over 12 who commit violent crimes as adults did. However, even since the laws changed only twenty percent of serious offenders served any time. The decision of whether to waive a juven...
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...
Scott is a Harold R. Medina Professor of Law at Columbia University. In her article, published in the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, she explores the principle that “children are different” from adult offenders, and as children they should be treated as such. Scott examines three Supreme Court opinions that have created a special status for youth offenders under the Eighth Amendment. Scott also delves into the science supporting this as well as the implications for juvenile crime regulation. Stevenson, Bryan, author.
It is expected that at a young age, children are taught the difference between what is right and what is wrong in all types of situations. The majority of Supreme Court Justices abolished mandatory life in prison for juveniles that commit heinous crimes, argued this with the consideration of age immaturity, impetuosity, and also negative family and home environments. These violent crimes can be defined as murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault and the like depending on state law. With these monstrous acts in mind the supreme court justices argument could be proven otherwise through capability and accountability, the underdevelopment of the teenage brain and the severity of the crime. Juveniles commit heinous crimes just like adults
The United States has been affected by a number of crimes committed by juveniles. The juvenile crime rate has been increasing in recent years. Everyday more juveniles commit crimes for various reasons. They act as adults when they are not officially adults. There is a discussion about how juveniles should be punished if they commit heinous crimes. While many argue that juveniles who commit serious crimes, such as murder, should be treated as adults, the fact is, juveniles under the age of eighteen, are not adults, and should not be treated as such.
The juvenile system was first established in the United States around 1899 when Illinois had their first court appearance including a juvenile. This then led to the Nation’s first juvenile system being created, which was for youth under the age of eighteen who have been convicted of crimes. Up until then, most youth were tried as an adult until the system was put into place. The system has different sections in which they youth is taken in such as: intake, adjudication, disposition, and post adjudicatory.