What age defines a person as an adult? In some states, such as Texas, you are considered an adult at 17 years of age. Other state’s juvenile systems make you liable to be tried as an adult at the age of 18. Law enforcement officials have been questioning the age of being tried as an adult for the past 40 years. Recently, they have come to the conclusion that children between the ages of 16 and 18 who commit adult crimes should be tried and sentenced as adults. After researching information and cases of minors being tried as adults, I have concluded that if minor offenders were punished in the same degree as adult offenders are, the number of minors committing crimes might be reduced significantly.
While it is not appropriate for these individuals to be placed in the same facilities as adult offenders, they should receive the same degree of punishment in a younger environment. These perpetrators are protected by a lenient and highly outdated juvenile system and violent youths have taken advantage of this system. In some jurisdictions, a child may have to commit 10 to 15 serious crimes before anything is actually done. Many people believe that the juvenile system is not adequate enough to handle the serious crimes of today’s juveniles, but trying them as minors for their serious crimes isn’t helping to eliminate crime. I refer to the system as “the easy way out.” Many of the offenders get a slap on the wrist and non-judicial sentences. Simply sentencing these juveniles with restitution to the victim, community service, or a forfeiture of their driver’s license isn’t enough. In 1998, The Los Angeles Times states that today more than a half-million people are locked up in this country; that total grows by more than 1,000 inmates each week. The numbers have grown quite a bit since then.
Not trying minors as adults for serious crimes may increase the crime rate with letting the offenders go without serious sentencing. With this taking place, it sends a signal to the peers of the offender, letting them know that they can get away with things of that sort. If the juvenile offender were to be treated as an adult for a serious crime, their friends may get the message that they too will pay the time for committing the crime. With this type of system, the juveniles would now realize that it is working against them instead of in their fav...
... middle of paper ...
...a “serious” crime. Is a 17 year old too young to know what he or she is doing while committing the crime? If there were mental issues involved then it would be a different story, but for an average 17-year-old to commit what the law considers an “adult crime”, then they should be sentenced as one. Silvio Carrillo says, “Minors who commit serious crimes because they do not recognize the value of life should be subject to the same punishment that adults are.” There is no excuse to why these juveniles should be committing such crime in the first place, much less not being properly punished for them.
“It’s not about giving children second chances. It’s about making them responsible for their actions”, says Estudillo. As the system is now, minors believe that until they reach a certain age, the law does not apply to them. The juvenile system has begun to crack down on juvenile offenders. Since 1985, the U.S. has executed more juvenile offenders than all other countries combined (Carrillo). More severe punishment could possible strike fear into the hearts of the offenders’ peers, helping to reduce the crime rate. It’s time that someone is held responsible.
The adult system’s shifts leaked into the juvenile system, causing an increase in incarcerations even when delinquency rates were declining at the time. Juvenile reform legislations prompted more compulsory sentencing and more determinate sentences for juveniles, lowering of the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction, considerable ease in obtaining waivers to adult court for juvenile prosecution, and made it easier to gain access to juvenile records as well. Furthermore, it led to greater preoccupation with chronic, violent offenders, which in turn led to a redirection of resources for their confinement. Thereby, the absence of reliable criteria for identifying such offenders tends to stereotype all delinquents and is more likely to raise the level of precautionary confinements. These three major shifts in juvenile justice policy demonstrate the power and depth of traditional beliefs about the causes and cures of crimes in U.S. society. It also shows how the system can bend for a time in the direction of new approaches to prevention and control. Today, we are presently in a time of conservative responses where the prevailing views about crime express beliefs about prevention, retribution, and incapacitation that are profoundly rooted in our
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
Rather than robbing them of the chance to grow and become better human beings, though, the government has the ultimate responsibility to help transform these troubled youths into upstanding citizens—even if it is within the walls of a prison rather than a classroom or office building. Executing minors does nothing but remind us of America’s stubbornness to do what may take time but in the end is right.
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,
Every year, children as young as thirteen and fourteen are sentenced to die in prison in the United States. Judges rule these sentences without considering factors such as age and life circumstances. According to studies, there are about 2000 children serving juvenile sentences in the United States (Nellis 30). Further, Studies indicated that 25 percent of the young individuals serving life without parole were convicted accomplice liability, meaning they may not have committed the crime or may not know the primary perpetrators of the crime (Steinberg and Scott 54). All this happens despite the global consensus that children should not handle the same way as adults. This paper explores juvenile life sentencing as a social issue that is affecting
If children are too young to vote, drink alcohol, drive, and go watch rated R movies, why should they be tried as adults? It has always been an issue if whether an adolescent, under the age of eighteen, convicted of violent crimes should be tried as an adult or not. There are children as young as eleven years old that are being sent to adult prisons (Krikorian 2003). In such cases the jury does not take into consideration the fact that they are too young to stand trial, their brains are not fully developed, and that they are capable of rehabilitating.
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).
Many people say that the systems first priority should be to protect the public from the juvenile criminals that are a danger to others. Once the juveniles enter the system there is however, arguments on what should be done with them. Especially for those deemed too dangerous to be released back to their parents. Some want them locked away for as long as possible without rehabilitation, thinking that it will halt their criminal actions. One way to do this they argue would be to send them into an adult court. This has been a large way to reform the juvenile system, by lowering the age limits. I believe in certain cases this is the best method for unforgiving juveniles convicted of murder, as in the case of Ronald Duncan, who got away with a much lesser sentence due to his age. However another juvenile, Geri Vance, was old enough to be sent into the adult court, which caused him t...
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While California's juvenile population rose by a half a million since the middle and late 1970's, juveniles made up less than fifth-teen percent of California's felony arrests in 1998, compared to thirty percent in 1978; according to the Justice Policy Institute. The juvenile arrests have dropped back, even as the population of kids between ages of ten and eight-teen has continued to grow, and the number of kids confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA) has fallen. With all the progress our society has made in cutting back in juvenile crimes there is still a very serious problem. But if locking kids up is the best way to address it, how do we explain a drop in crime when there are more teens in California and fewer in custody? First we must look at the economy around us. With so many job opportunities available more and more teenagers find honest ways to keep busy and make money. Our generation has a brighter future than the generation a decade ago. Next we look at successful crime prevention efforts: after-school programs, mentoring, teen outreach programs, truancy abatement, anti-gang programs, family resource centers. There is evidence that these programs are beginning to pay off. Sending more, and younger teens through the adult court system has been a trend across the country in reaction to crimes, such as school shootings and violent rapes. Yet evidence shows that treating youth as adults does not reduce crime. In Florida, where probability wise more kids are tried as adults then in any other state, studies found that youth sent through the adult court system are twice as likely to commit more crimes when they're release...
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...
once the minor has committed a violent crime, they are no longer a kid. The minor had the ability to know right from wrong, but he still chose to commit the heinous crime anyway. Choosing to commit this violent crime means that the minor chose to act as an adult and must be held accountable. Once the minor has made the decision to act as an adult, they must be treated as an adult. If we do not teach minors that what they did has consequences they will never learn. Arguments can be made that minors should not be treated as adults and while these arguments do have merit, they are not my beliefs. In my opinion, minors who commit violent crimes need to be tried as adults. Justice does not discriminate when it comes to age. Right is right, and wrong is wrong and the wrong should be punished equally.
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.
Children commit adult crimes. The problem is how do we punish them? Should they be treated in juvenile facilities, or punished with adult criminals? In some states, you are considered to be an adult at 17 years old, therefore, as criminals get placed “in adult prisons for more sophisticated training in violent crimes and victimization.”(Pg. 637)
One reason why juvenile offenders should not be tried as adult is because they are far from adulthood. Many teenager who have committed a crime has a different background. For example, they have suffered sex abused, their parents have been drug addicted , or have been in prison for many years. There are many factors