In today's society, there are many crimes that happen worldwide that doesn’t just include adults. One issue that is found is juvenile offenses and the decision on whether or not juvenile offenders should be tried and charged as adults in criminal court. The debate comes along the question of whether a criminal who is a juvenile should be punished the same as an adult would if committing the same crime. Individuals, who commit serious crimes, including teenagers, should be penalized according to the law. Age should not be the primary factor in account of violations; many may consider that the child or young adult did not have the ability of knowing right from wrong or that they were raised with similar accepted behaviors. In spite of the fact …show more content…
Actions that are moral produce good or positive consequences, while immoral actions produce bad or negative consequences (Albanese, 2012). The deontological view is based on the concept of the intent of the act; meanwhile the judgment is based upon goals. Deontology is defined as the study of duty and morality. Although the concept of the retributive theory has been around for a long time, deontology also supports various modes of punishment. Peacemaking perspective argues against the use of the death penalty or punishment and emphasizes social justice (Brasweel, McCarthy, &Bernard, 2015). The peacemaking theory is a view that is based on the Positivist school, seeking to understand the criminal and the possible reasons to why he/she engaged in those …show more content…
In my opinion, both cases deserve justice for the victims’ families to demonstrate that just because the crime/murder was done by someone younger doesn’t mean that it can be acceptable or looked upon differently in terms of charges. Both the Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Arkansas have been handled correctly with the exception of one aspect dealing with the utilitarian philosophy. Under the utilitarian philosophy, laws should be used to focus on what can be done to satisfy society but yet give justice. Utilitarianism positions the morality of an action that is determined by its attachment to the greatest happiness principle, which guides people to cause the greatest amount of happiness for a vast number of people (Cohen & Ahn, 2016). Because crime and punishment are inconsistent with happiness, they should be kept to a
There is a great deal of controversy over the trying and sentencing of juvenile offenders today. Many will argue that because the severity of Juvenile crimes has risen, the severity of its consequences should rise; however, no matter how serious the crime is, juvenile offenders tried as adults receive far worse than they deserve. The majority of Juveniles tried as adults are hardly given any form of human rights. Adult jails are not the environment children should have to experience, especially those sentenced for misdemeanors and nonviolent crimes. There are other solutions to reducing juvenile crime. It does not take adult court to straighten out kids on the wrong path. Most children are not even able to recognize that what they had done is wrong. There may be no perfect solution to reducing juvenile crime, but there are ways far more effective than adult trying and sentencing.
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
Deontology is an ethical theory concerned with duties and rights. The founder of deontological ethics was a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. Kant’s deontological perspective implies people are sensitive to moral duties that require or prohibit certain behaviors, irrespective of the consequences (Tanner, Medin, & Iliev, 2008). The main focus of deontology is duty: deontology is derived from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. A duty is morally mandated action, for instance, the duty never to lie and always to keep your word. Based on Kant, even when individuals do not want to act on duty they are ethically obligated to do so (Rich, 2008).
Deontological ethics are “ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). This viewpoint focuses more on the action itself rather than the outcome. Per Kant’s Categorical Imperative one should “so act that you treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else always at the same time as an end and never merely as means” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). An example of this is that killing is wrong, even if it is in self-defense. Many of the values and morals of the ELI Responsibilities Lens are based on the deontological
Deontology diverges from consequentialism because deontology concentrates on the rightness or wrongness of the actions themselves instead of the consequences. There are different types of deontological theories. According to Kant, theoretical reasoning helps us discover what we should believe whereas the practical reasoning tells us what we should do. Morality falls under theoretical reasoning. In Kantian deontology, motives matter. Rather than consequences, it is the motive of an action makes that action morally right or wrong. Likewise, if an action intends to hurt someone, but eventually it benefits the other person, then it does not make that action morally right. All in all, deontology comes down to common-sense: whether it is a good action or a bad
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up. According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.
The deontological view would be that we should act according to a set of rules, obligations, or duties that we must fulfil, unmindful of the consequences. Kant, a popular deontological philosopher of the 19th century, wrote in his “Foundations of Metaphysics of Morals”,
In the last 42 years little to no changes have been made to correct the standards that govern punitive measures towards juvenile delinquency. Today juvenile law is governed by state and many states have enacted a juvenile code. However, in numerous cases, juveniles are transferred to adult court when juvenile courts waive or relinquish jurisdiction. Adolescents should not be tried in the adult court system or sentenced to adult penitentiary's on account of: teen brains are not mature which causes a lack of understanding towards the system, incarceration in an adult facility increases juvenile crime, and children that are sentenced to adult prison are vulnerable to abuse and rape.
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).
Guilty! As the gavel hits the sound block, everyone is amazed at the verdict. This teenage boy is sentenced to a life in prison without parole. As you read this in newspapers, magazines, and even online, what goes through your head? You may be thinking, “Why is this teen being tried as adult, he is just a kid?” While he is “just a kid”, and this is a widely held opinion, but it is not mine. Should minors who commit violent crimes be tried as adults? Absolutely. Just because minors are young they do have the ability to know what is right from wrong. Since these minors have committed the crime, they need to be held accountable. If a minor has acted as an adult, they need to be treated like adults. Lastly, minors need to know that their actions have consequences, no matter what age.
There has always been controversies as to whether juvenile criminals should be tried as adults or not. Over the years more and more teenagers have been involved in committing crimes. In some cases the juries have been too rough on the teens. Trying teens as adults can have a both positive and negative views. For example, teens that are detained can provide information about other crimes, can have an impact in social conditions, and serve as experience; however, it can be negative because teens are still not mature enough for that experience, they are exposed to adult criminals; and they will lose out on getting an education.
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.
Much controversy exists on the question of whether a juvenile criminal should be punished to the same extent as an adult. Those who commit capitol crimes, including adolescents, should be penalized according to the law. Age should not be a factor in the case of serious crimes. Many people claim that the child did not know any better, or that he was brought up with the conception that this behavior is acceptable. Although there is some truth to these allegations, the reality of this social issue is far more complex. Therefore we ask the question, "Should childhood offenders of capitols crimes be treated as adults?"
A nonconsequentialist act is the deontology theory. Deontology is a moral obligation or duty to act relating to a principle or rule. Deontology requires the act of humanity. It is never the treatment as a means to an end. A rule of deontology is that one should act in a manner that maxim the act intending to develop the act as a universal law. However, deontology can obligate someone to act in a way that seems wrong and unethical (Mossier, 2013). It is a rigid theory that fails to capture the complex issues that arise. Therefore, one would need to act as everyone would act in that specific situation. When applying the deontology theory, one should focus on the will of the person acting, the person’s intention of carrying out the act, and the rule according to which the act is carried out. Deontology can impact human life within society through the application to the principal in gender equality in areas of employment, health care, and the education system. The