“According to the FBI , youth under 18 account for 14% of all arrest a year. 34% of those are arrested for violent crimes.” When the supreme court ruled that life without parole for a juvenile, it was outrageous because why should a 17 and a half year old be considered a juvenile for setting off a bomb in a crowded mall or even gunning down dozens of students and teachers, why should they be considered children. Teens should be punished for their actions accordingly for the law they broke. For anything above a misdemeanor they should do some sort of jail time depending on the seriousness of the crime. For example first degree murder should be a lifetime sentence in jail. Voluntary manslaughter should also be a lifetime sentence in jail.
First of all, in the article “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” Paul Thompson argues that “Even though normal teens are experiencing a wildfire of tissue loss in their brains,
…show more content…
There is unarmed robbery and armed robbery. An armed robbery is when they have a ways to assault a cashier or a civilian other than their hands. If a teenager commits unarmed robbery they should not spend the rest of their life in prison they should be forced to go through a rehabilitation program for juveniles. “A Sacramento teen claimed he was mimicking a TV program about little girls who rob a bank was given a 26-years-to-life prison term. Tried as an adult was fourteen when he stabbed to death a mini mart clerk.“ This is an example of armed robbery from the article “Kids Are Kids- Until They Commit Crimes” by Marjie Lundstrom. This is a crime that deserves a teenager to be thrown into the adult system with no chance of rehabilitation. Thomas knew what he was doing was wrong even though he claimed to be mimicking a TV program, even in the program the girls got sentenced to prison for their acts. This is no excuse for the teenager to have not been thrown into prison, his sentence was
“You are hereby sentenced to life without the possibility of parole”. These are the words that a juvenile in America is likely to hear. Collectively, as a nation, the United States has incarcerated more juveniles with life sentences than any other nation. With this fact the arguments arise that juveniles should not be punished the same was as an adult would be but, is that really how the justice system should work? To allow a juvenile who recently robbed a store only get a slap on the wrist? Not comprehending that there are consequences for their actions and how what they have done affects the victims.
In a recent news story reported by Hanson (2013), Travion Blount was convicted and sentenced to six life terms. He did not commit homicide, rape, or any sort of sexual assault. He was convicted of 51 felony charges which included the illegal use of a firearm, robbery, and abduction. Blount’s advocates argue his six life sentences for an armed robbery violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment. How, may you ask, did a 15 year old wind up with such an atrocious sentence? Here is a summary of what happened.
y of their actions.To demonstrate this assertion is correct, sufficient research has been complied.To prove in the article, On Punishment and Teen Killers, by Jennifer Jenkins has stated that,”We in America have to own this particular problem, with weapons so easily available to our youth, and the violence-loving culture in which we raise them”(5).Although it 's not us who commit the crime we do make it easier for them to get a hold on weapons espicially in the Unites States.Adam Liptak points out in the article, Jailed for Life After Crimes as Teenagers, that “The United States is one of only a handful of countries that does that.Life without parole, the most severe form of life sentences,is theoretically available for
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.
First off sentencing juveniles without parole should not be allowed to happen because the juveniles brain has not yet matured enough and they don’t think before they act. In the article “Juveniles don’t deserve life sentences” by Gail Garinger he asserts “young people are biologically different from adults. Brain imagining studies reveal that regions of
There has always been an issue with Juveniles being treated as if they were adults. Many believe that Juveniles that commit crimes such as rape, murder, or extreme violence, should be given a sentence of life in prison. It's been an issue since the start of when Juveniles have been given life without parole and has continued until this day. These kids have to suffer their first years in prison living without parole. I believe that some teens do deserve life without parole due their certain age point, childhood issues, and serious crime they have committed.
Age is a factor in why Juveniles should not be sentenced to life in prison. As Paul Thompson states in his article Startling Finds on Teenage Brains from the Sacramento Bee, published on May 25, 2001 “ ...These frontal lobes,which inhibit our violent passions, rash action and regulate our emotions are vastly immature throughout the teenage years.” he also says that “The loss[of brain tissue] was like a wildfire, and you see it in every teenager.”. This loss of brain tissue plays a role in the erratic behavior of teens, they cannot properly assess their emotions and thoughts. During this period of brain tissue loss teens are unpredictable, adults do not know what their teen’s next move will be, teens themselves do not even know what their next move will be. As we grow our brains develop, therefore teen brains are not fully developed, so they cannot be held to the same standards as adults.
In the article On Punishment and Teen Killers by Jenkins, sadly brings to our attention that kids are sometimes responsible for unimaginable crimes, in 1990 in a suburban Chicago neighborhood a teenager murdered a women, her husband, and her unborn child, as she begged for the life of her unborn child he shot her and later reported to a close friend that it was a “thrill kill”, that he just simply wanted to see what it felt like to shoot someone. A major recent issue being debated is whether or not we have the right to sentence Juveniles who commit heinous crimes to life in adult penitentiaries without parole. I strongly believe and agree with the law that states adolescents who commit these heinous crimes should be tried as adults and sentenced as adults, however I don’t believe they should be sentenced to life without parole. I chose this position because I believe that these young adults in no way should be excused for their actions and need to face the severe consequences of their actions. Although on the other hand I believe change is possible and that prison could be rehabilitating and that parole should be offered.
On the morning of April 20, 1999, Eric Davis Harris and Dylan Bennet Klebold went into the Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and went on a rampage killing spree leaving 12 students and 1 teacher dead and over 20 people injured before killing themselves. This crime is known as one of the most deadliest school massacres in the United States history (Pittaro).
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
Even though juveniles brains’ aren't developed at the age they committed the crime, they should be able to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong. However, four justices strongly agree, mandatory sentences reflected the will of America society that heinous crimes committed by juveniles should always be punished. The majority of Supreme Court justices who argued to abolish mandatory life in prison for juveniles. Researchers around the world agree with this statement because juveniles don't have a fully developed brain or have rough homes. Many juveniles have don't first degree misers and second degree murders. I stand against abolishing mandatory life in prison. In my opinion Juveniles, depending on the the crime should be sentenced
That’s why we don’t permit 15-year-olds to drink, drive, vote or join the military” (qtd. in Billitteri). There is adolescent-development research according to Hambrick, J. and Ellem, J that has shown “children do not possess the same capacity as adults to think thru the consequences of their behaviors, control their responses or avoid peer pressure” (qtd. in Lyons). There are some very good points made in the argument against sentencing youth as adults but I still have a hard time agreeing with peer pressure or impulse control as a reason to be held in a juvenile center for less than a few years for murder. Ryan, L. uses the example of a report released by the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention on “Juvenile Transfer Laws : An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency?” This report found that prosecuting youths as adults has little or no effect on juvenile crime.” She uses this information and backs it up with the report showing “youths prosecuted as adults are more likely to re-offend than youths handled in the juvenile justice system” (qtd. in Katel). This is definitely a new perspective, but I still stand with my first take on the subject. “We know young people can commit serious crimes, and the consequences are no less tragic” (qtd in
Their brains develop in different stages and they learn skills that they need to learn at certain time. In the article “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences”, by Garinger, she argues that juveniles should not be treated as adults if they commit horrible crimes. Garinger states that juveniles should not be sentenced to life in prison without parole. She states that the court is considering life in prison without parole for juveniles who commit capital crimes. Garinger says that juveniles are immature, and still developing, so they can not be held to the same standards as adults. The writer add that as a juvenile court judge, she has seen how that juveniles can change and may become rehabilitated. For example, the court has already struck down death penalty and the life in prison without parole for juveniles or for young offenders convicted of non-homicide. According to the article, “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life In Prison,” Paul Garinger states that “Brain imaging studies reveal that the regions of the adolescent brain are responsible for controlling thoughts, actions, and emotions are not fully developed. They can not be held to the same standards when they commit terrible crimes.” If this is true, there is no a reason to treat juveniles as
Is it fair to give juveniles life sentences? On June 25 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who committed murder could not be sentenced to life in prison because it violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, stated that “Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features- among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate the risks and consequences. It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him and from which he cannot usually extricate himself no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.” Juveniles should not be sentenced to life in prison or adult jail until legal age. Due to the facts that many are still young and aren’t over eighteen.
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.