Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
juveniles on death penalty
researchpaper abput sentencing options for juvenile crimes
juveniles on death penalty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: juveniles on death penalty
Juveniles and The Death Penalty *No Works Cited One of the most controversial issues in the rights of juveniles today is addressed in the question, "Should the death penalty be applied to juveniles"? For nearly a century the juvenile courts have existed to shield the majority of juvenile offenders from the full weight of criminal law and to protect their entitled "special rights and immunities." In the case of kent vs. United states in 1996, Justice Fortas stated some of these "special rights" which include; Protection from publicity, confinement only to twenty-one years of age, no confinement with adults, and protection against the consequences of adult conviction such as the loss of civil rights, the use of adjudication against him in subsequent proceedings and disqualification of public employment (Kent vs. US 1966:1055). These " special rights and immunities " exist so that the justice courts can provide measures of guidance and rehabilitation for the child along with protection for society. However, there are some youths who are extremely dangerous and do not respond to attempts to reform themselves. The question is, should established mechanisms for transferring or waiving juvenile court jurisdiction in these exceptional cases take away these "special rights" and subject the youth to the full range of penalties for criminal behavior including, in some jurisdictions, execution (Thomson vs. State, 1986:784) ? Should These juveniles who perform the same malicious acts as some adult capital offenders be subject to the harshness of the criminal courts and the finality of the death penalty ? This paper will discuss a history of capital punishment for juveniles in the United States, methods of transferring juvenile cases to cri... ... middle of paper ... ...and its importance concerning the subject. The methods of transferring a juvenile from the juvenile court to the criminal courts are what make this controversial problem possible, once a juvenile is placed in the hands of the criminal courts, they are subject to all of the punishments that an adult offender would encounter, including capital punishments. The future of our court system and the punishment of juveniles for violent capital crimes depends on the reform of the death penalty with emphasis on consistency and justice. I feel that if the system continues on the path that it is on, the concept of capital punishment for all ages of offenders will not last. Further more, I don't believe that capital punishment will ever be effectively and consistently used in clarified capital offense cases, due to a number of inconsistencies in the United States Courts system.
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...
Hale, Robert L. A Review of Juvenile Executions in America. Vol. 3. Wales: Edwin Mellen, 1997. Print.
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
Heinous crimes are considered brutal and common among adults who commit these crimes, but among children with a young age, it is something that is now being counted for an adult trial and punishable with life sentencing. Although some people agree with this decision being made by judges, It is my foremost belief that juveniles don’t deserve to be given life sentencing without being given a chance at rehabilitation. If this goes on there’s no point in even having a juvenile system if children are not being rehabilitated and just being sent off to prison for the rest of their lives and having no chance getting an education or future. Gail Garinger’s article “ juveniles Don’t deserve Life sentence”, written March 14, 2012 and published by New york Times, mentions that “ Nationwide, 79 adolescents have been sentenced to die in prison-a sentence not imposed on children anywhere else in the world. These children were told that they could never change and that no one cared what became of them. They were denied access to education and rehabilitation programs and left without help or hope”. I myself know what it’s like to be in a situation like that, and i also know that people are capable of changing even children when they are young and still growing.
When our thoughts turn to the criminal justice system it is only a natural instinct to assume everyone associated with policing, courts, and corrections will have to deal with juveniles sometime in their career. Young people in today’s society can be so easily influenced by social situations, peer pressure, and family members. The courts in the United States are faced with difficult decisions on a daily basis. Sentencing juveniles to adult facilities for their crimes is becoming a common trend in the justice system today; however it is not a deterrent whatsoever. “The current policies of juvenile bind over to adult criminal court and severe sentencing have been unsuccessful
Day after day in this country there is a debate going on about the death penalty and whether we as people have the right to decide the fate of another persons life. When we examine this issue we usually consider those we are arguing about to be older men and women who are more than likely hardened criminals with rap sheets longer than the height we stand (Farley & Willwerth, 1998). They have made a career of crime, committing it rather than studying it, and somewhere along the line a jury of their peers decided enough was enough. They were handed down the most severe and most final punishment of them all, death. Behind all of the controversy that this issue raises lies a different group of people that are not so often brought into the lime light, juveniles.
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
Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is entirely eliminating the use of the life without parole sentence for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the crime being charged.
Today, we live in a society faced with many problems, including crime and the fear that it creates. In the modern era, juveniles have become a part of society to be feared, not rehabilitated. The basis of the early juvenile justice system was to rehabilitate and create safe havens for wayward youth. This is not the current philosophy, although the U.S. is one of the few remaining countries to execute juveniles. Presently, our nation is under a presidential administration that strongly advocates the death penalty, including the execution of juveniles. The media and supporters of capital punishment warn of the "superpredator," the juvenile with no fear, remorse, or conscience. Opponents of this view encourage the idea that another death is only revenge, not deterrence. We will examine the rights allotted to juvenile offenders, and the punishments inflicted upon them for violations of the law.
Sentencing juveniles to capital punishment is unethical and cruel. It is too severe for juveniles without the full reasoning ability and limited brain development to be sentence to the death penalty. Horn (2009) writes, “Youths lack the sense of responsibility that society requires of adults. Their personalities are not yet fixed… Young people have to little experience to fully grasp the consequences of their actions.” (Horn, 2009). This shows that juveniles do not have the experience that adults have to be like adults. Also, Stevenson (2014) writes, “Contemporary neurological, psychological…evidence has established that children are impaired by immature judgement, an underdeveloped capacity for self-regulation and responsibility, vulnerability to negative influences and outside pressures, and a lack of control over their own impulses and their environment.” (Stevenson, 2014, pg. 267-268). Stevenson (2014) is basically saying that children are not matured as adults and the court needs to look at these facts before giving such punishments. Not only that, Stevenson (2014) says, “Young adolescents lack life experience and background knowledge to inform their choices; they struggle to generate options and to imagine consequences; and, perhaps for good reason, they lack the necessary self-confidence to make reasoned judgements and stick by them” (Stevenson, 2014, pg. 268-269). Children should be
This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.
In 1899, the nation’s first juvenile court for youth under the age of 16 was established in Chicago to provide rehabilitation rather than punishment. By 1925, following the Chicago model, all but two states had juvenile courts whose goals were to turn youth into productive citizens utilizing treatment that included warnings, probation, and training school confinement(Cox et al. 2014, p.2). Treatment lasted until the child was “cured” or turned 21. Although judges spoke with the offending children and decided upon the punishment, the lack of established rules and poor rehabilitation led to unfair treatment. In 1967 “ U.S. Supreme Court case of In re Gault held that juveniles were entitled to the same constitutional due process rights as adults, beginning a national reform in juvenile justice and the system was repaired to afford children many of the same rights that adults have in court” (Cox et al. 2014, p.4). Also, state legislatures passed laws to crack down on juvenile crime, as recently, states have attempted strike a balance in their approach to juvenile justice systems as research suggests that locking youth away in large, secure juvenile facilities is ineffective treatment towards different genders in which it doesn’t provide appropriate rehabilitation.
Jake Evans, a 17-year-old teenage boy, murdered his mother and sister by firing multiple gunshots at home in Texas (Brown, 2012; Walsh, 2012). After this heinous act, he made a 911 call to inform the dispatcher what he had done with a calm voice. Evans’s cold-blood double homicide case led the media to depict him as an malevolent adolescent, even the judge hearing over Evans’s case refused to drop the capital murder charge against Evans (Winter, 2013). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that individuals who are under the age of 18 at the time of their offense should not be sentenced to death or life without parole (Miller v. Alabama, 2012; Roper v. Simmons, 2005). Evans’s public defender requested to try the boy with murder instead of capital murder which has only two punitive sentencing outcomes in Texas--- life without parole and death penalty (Douglas, 2013). However, both sentences would be unconstitutional to Evans because he was 17 years old when he committed offense (Winter, 2013). As the judge insisted to charge Evans with the capital offense, once Evans was convicted, the judge, however, will face another issue which is how to deliver a lawful and appropriate verdict. Therefore, to resolve the problem, the Texas District and County Attorneys Association is attempting to revise the law without violating the initial Supreme Court ruling (Winter, 2013). When the public and the media encounter cases like Jake Evans’s, they tend to overemphasize on what the defendants have done and how to punish them rather focus on what happened to the juvenile offenders while growing up and what drove them to their actions. The purpose of this essay is to shift from the unjust emphasis on one portion of cases, the legal process, to how this al...
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?"
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.