Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Relevance of punitive actions to reduce crimes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Relevance of punitive actions to reduce crimes
This paper will first define culpability, explore its various levels and examine how it is used during sentencing. Next, this paper will examine literature that supports the belief that age is not the key factor in determining culpability and should not be used to determine guilt or innocence during trial. Finally, this paper will suggest that trying juveniles as adults and remanding them into adult facilities is ineffective at decreasing juvenile crime rates. These issues will be reviewed to determine if physical (chronological) age is a justifiable cause to lessen culpability or an excuse used to mask the ineffective research efforts of lawmakers.
Culpability has long been defined as a legal term that is used by judicial officials to describe the level of responsibility each person has for a crime Giedd et al (1999). Prosecutors use courtroom jargon such as culpability based on physical age as a legal excuse to persuade courtroom officials to reduce sentences for juvenile offenders. Studies taken from Corriero (2007) revealed that a “normal” child can decipher right from wrong as early as the age of 2 physical years but it may take up to 1 additional year for an abnormal child to develop that same unit of cognitive measure. This statement suggests that although it may take longer for an“abnormal” child to reach the same level of understanding mentally, one calendar year does not have to open the door for lessened criminal liability. This raises the chronological age of normal children and lessens the age of abnormal children in many cases. For example, a 14 year old (chronological age) child can have the mental age of a 6 year old or vice versa. Juvenile accountability varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction throughout the ...
... middle of paper ...
...dies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition Vol. 80, No. 1 (Oct., 1995), pp. 41-49
Smit, D. (2005) The Abolition of Capital Punishment for Persons Under the Age of Eighteen Years in the United States of America. What Next? Oxford Journals Law Human Rights Law Review Volume 5, Issue 2 Pp. 393-401
Staniels, J. (1995) Grading Culpability at Sentencing: The Example of Sentencing Entrapment: Federal Sentencing Reporter Vol. 7, No. 4, Criminal Law Defenses at Sentencing pp. 178-180
Steinberg, L & Scott, E.(2003) Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty. American Psychologist, Vol 58(12), 1009-1018
Winter, H ( 2006)The Economics of Crime: An Introduction to Rational Crime Analysis
5th and 14th Amendment Retrieved from www.findlaw.com October 29, 2011
state juvenile court is made up of purpose clauses that can fall into one or more of the five thematic categories. (Snyder and Sickmund 2006; 98) These five categories include balanced and restorative justice clauses, standard juvenile court act clauses, legislative guide clauses, clauses that emphasize punishment, deterrence, accountability or public safety, and clauses with traditional child welfare emphasis.
to our youth, and the violence-loving culture in which we raise them. The Innuit people of northern Canada had no juvenile crime at all until 1980 and the introduction of television into their culture. Both sides in the debate about JLWOP agree: Teens are being tried as adults and sentenced to prison for murder at alarming rates in the United States. But this actually disproves juvenile advocates’ reliance on the “underdeveloped brain” argument. If brain development were the reason, then teens would
which aim at investing and diversion into community based as alternatives to incarceration. State legislative actions, in the recent past, have diverted the nonviolent juvenile offenders from criminal or juvenile justice systems through pretrial diversion and the local community based programs. Rather than confining the juveniles in the state correctional facilities, they are sent into community-based programs where rehabilitation continues. Through this reallocation, the country saves money that
treatment. There are three types of juvenile waivers that have been allowing juveniles to be treated as adults in adult court. The Miller v. Alabama case is a step toward more just treatment of juvenile offenders following several decades’ worth of harsh treatment of youthful offenders. States have assumed that the juvenile justice system was the main way to shield the public by having
Juveniles Being Tried As Adults Jennifer Combs University of Mount Olive Steven N. Long, J.D. Abstract Juveniles Being Tried As Adults Numerous studies have been conducted with juvenile crimes and the outcomes from what happens after they have been put into criminal court. Legal procedures and laws that relate to juvenile offenders go back thousands of years when children disobeyed their parents, and sons would curse their fathers. The Roman civil law and canon law 2,000
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
The Juvenile Justice system, since its conception over a century ago, has been one at conflict with itself. Originally conceived as a fatherly entity intervening into the lives of the troubled urban youths, it has since been transformed into a rigid and adversarial arena restrained by the demands of personal liberty and due process. The nature of a juvenile's experience within the juvenile justice system has come almost full circle from being treated as an adult, then as an unaccountable child, now
that exists in the field of criminal justice is the incarceration of juveniles. While juvenile incarceration has been decreasing over the past decade, it is still an ethical dilemma that many criminal justice professionals will come across. Juveniles’ brains are not fully developed, incarceration is used when not appropriate to fit the problem, and some populations are over-represented in the criminal justice system. Juvenile Brains It has been found that juvenile brains are not yet fully developed
Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance “when you teach someone to swim, you don’t just throw them in the deep end and hope they do great” (Chen, 2010, para. 14). In the late 19th century, juvenile offenders were tried and punished as adults. Today, the justice system does not take in account age or maturity when picking a punishment for young offenders. As the justice principle says, “ Adult time for adult crime”, however, in the present era, many seem to take little attention of age and maturity
regarding this issue in the interceding fifteen years. The grave problem with this case is that the Supreme Court used the case of Roper V. Simmons to create law based of invalid sources. `Roper v. Simmons is a case involving the sentencing of death to juvenile offenders. The case involved Chris Simmons who was seventeen years old when he committed murder. Simmons had entered the home of a woman named Shirley Crook. Simmons then tied the Crook up before he ultimately threw her off a bridge. Crook was
a given situation, is it ethical to hold these two age groups, with mentalities that are worlds apart, to the same standards and punishments in the justice system? Until Roper v. Simmons in 2005, the justice system did just that, treat the actions of 16 year old with the same consequences as if they had been committed by an adult. In Roper v. Simmons the United States Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile under the age of 18 to the death penalty. Before, Roper v. Simmons
While mental disorders are characterized by abnormal behaviors in certain people, abnormal behavior is considered by psychologists when a combination of the mentioned elements meet together: unusual or statistically infrequent; socially unacceptable or in violation of social norms; fraught with misperceptions or misinterpretations of reality; associated with states of severe personal distress; maladaptive or self-defeating; and dangerous (Nevid et al, 2011). Some would think that psychopathy is
punishment, while other groups such as the National Center for Policy Analysis support the death penalty because they believe that life sentences do not deter homicide. Furthermore, victims’ families have a stake in the issue because they deserve justice for their murdered loved ones, and convicted murders have a stake because their own lives are in jeopardy as they sit on death row. Most importantly, all the citizens of the United States are involved in the matter, since the way in which we punish