Kids Are Kids-Until They Commit Crimes By Marjie Lundstrom

1024 Words3 Pages

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 …show more content…

Although children are constantly being exposed to violence through movies, television, and video games which could influence the harm done, kids today are more sophisticated at a younger age; they understand the implications of violence and how to use violent weapons. In the article “Kids are Kids- Until They Commit Crimes”, Marjie Lundstrom explores the stories of two young boys, Lionel Tate and Thomas A. Preciado, who both commit violent crimes and try to play it off. Tate unsuccessfully tried to put pro wrestling on trial for “savagely beating a six-year-old girl..” and Preciado claimed he was mimicking a TV show of robbing a bank and was tried as an adult for stabbing the mini mart clerk to death. The real question is how do we know if these indications are true, if these children really were imitating or if those are all just excuses. It is absurd to argue that a modern child, who sees the effect of violence around him in the news every day, does not understand what it means to kill. The fact that child killers know how to load and shoot a gun is an indicator that they understand exactly what they are doing and should not be able to make excuses as such. With this it is proven that a child's surroundings do not fully influence their wrongful doings and the Supreme Court Justices shall retain their …show more content…

Although this may seem like a huge indication on why teens do act upon impulse, it can not be blamed on the underdeveloped brain argument which is greatly proved in the article “On Punished and Teen Killers” by Jennifer Jenkins. Jenkins argues, “If brain development were the reason, then teens would kill at roughly the same rates all over the world”. With this brain loss it would be expected that all existing teens would receive the same rush and desire to murder, rape, commit aggravated assault or any other crime, but this is not true. The incident which Nathaniel Brazill committed is another example, he “shot to death an English teacher who would not let him say goodbye to two girls… he said he made a ‘stupid mistake’ but prosecutors argued that by bringing a gun to school he planned the crime”. This act cannot be labeled simply a “stupid mistake” because it was proven to be premeditated and not only did he bring the gun to school, but the fact that he was angry shows he did it on purpose and had the clear intention to kill. While research on brain tissue loss can help us to understand teens better, it cannot be used to excuse their violent or homicidal

More about Kids Are Kids-Until They Commit Crimes By Marjie Lundstrom

Open Document