Should Abolish Mandatory Life Sentences For Juveniles

800 Words2 Pages

There has been a debatable question going around in the justice system about rather or not the supreme court justice system should abolish mandatory life sentences for juveniles who commit murder. The majority of the supreme court believes that mandatory life sentences for juveniles who commit murder should be abolished. I agree with the majority of the supreme court because I believe that everyone needs a second chance to make things right. Also since they are under the age of 18 and still a minor they brain is still maturing and developing.
The authors that we have read that support my position is Paul Thompson, Gail
Garinger, and Scott Anderson. These passages provide evidence on how the teenage brain is different from the adult brain, why juveniles …show more content…

They provide evidence on how teenagers are only kids until they commit a crime, and give examples of juveniles that were trailed to life in prison without parole. According to Jennifer Jenkins believes that the juveniles should have life in prison but, however it was abolished years ago and by giving juveniles a life sentence it still allows a great deal of good living to be done even from behind bars far more than these teen killers gave to our murdered loved ones.
According to Marjie Lundstrom the society has created this image that teenagers are something to be feared. Also that society only considers juveniles are only kids until they commit crimes and the bigger the crime, the more eager we are to call them adults.
Since juveniles are the group we routinely write off as “only kids”, it’s why they can’t smoke, or drink, or go to R rated movies without our OK. It’s why they don’t vote. It’s why they have curfews, it’s why we fret over their internet access and fuss about driving privileges. I believe that Juveniles that commit murder are not bad people it is either because of peer pressure or they were provoked. There is also a reason why people act the

Open Document