Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
why juveniles should not be sentenced to life without parole essay
death sentence for juveniles
juvenile life sentences
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. In a modern Western society where there is significant amount of research done of rehabilitation and criminal justice reform, the practice of sentencing JLWOP (Juvenile Life Without Parole) seems outdated and primitive. There are a number of prominent human rights groups that advocate for the banning of the LWOP sentence for juvenile offenders. In his 2010 article for the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation titled ‘Extinguishing All Hope: Life-Without-Parole for Juveniles,’ Frank Butler breaks down the ethical arguments against the sentence from a social policy perspective. He uses a number of pertinent facts and dates to support and enhance his argument, but retains a clear and concise presentation style, making the document easy to read and comprehend on an analytical level. It is clear from his title that it is not an objective piece, but his opinion is supporte... ... middle of paper ... ...ing beckoned in with the 21st century. While U.S.’s JLWOP laws are inconsistent with many human rights treatises and with international law, it is more important for our policies to be based on a thorough understanding of the issue- the most essential being a separation of the processes for juvenile and adult criminal offenders. With an emphasis on rehabilitation for juvenile offenders, and the goal of encouraging maturity and personal development after wayward actions, the futures of many teens in the criminal justice system can become much more hopeful. Works Cited Butler, Frank (2010) ‘Extinguishing All Hope: Life-Without-Parole for Juveniles’, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49: 4, 273-292 “Criminal Law and Procedure -Eighth Amendment- Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences: Graham v. Florida” (2009) Harvard Law Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
In the United States, each year, there are numerous juvenile delinquents who are given mandatory life prison sentences. This paper will explain how a troubled boy at the age of 15 winds up being convicted, receiving one of the harshest punishments in the United States, and what actions may prevent future occurrence of this event happening to the lives of other delinquent youth.
The quagmire of placing juveniles in adult facilities is the risk factors juveniles may experience while incarcerated. Being that juveniles are young and smaller to the adult offenders, they may be seen as a prey or easy target for rape, assault, mental issues which eventually leads to suicide. We must keep in mind that juveniles are youth meaning they are still a child, not an adult and should not be exposed to adult incarceration environment. Although it is cost saving to place juveniles and adults under one facility, it is unethical because they are not built and yet mentally ready and prepared to experience adult facilities. Alternative strategies are available to assist juvenile detainees such as healthcare, education, recreation, and work experience. The Juvenile Court Act of 1899 gave leniency to youth under the age of 16. Placing youth detainees with adult offenders will result in the reduction of rehabilitation services for youth, while increasing the rate of being a victim as a potential prey o...
Central to the main proportionality principle of the YCJA was that extrajudicial measures should address the rehabilitative needs of the youth offender as a proportionate response to the offence (Barnhorst, 2004). The strong emphasis on rehabilitation under the original provisions of the YCJA was intended to “direct judges toward the use of alternative sanctions and away from the imposition of terms of imprisonment” (Roberts, 2003). Alternative sanctions such as community-based programs or extrajudicial measures allow youth to stay out of the formal criminal justice system, preventing the negative impact of incarceration that contributes to youth
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
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.
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.
Before recent amendments to the law the US had been one of the only countries in the world that allowed juveniles to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Only eight states in the US did not allow life in prison without parole for juveniles. They were Colorado, Kentucky, Alaska, Kansas, New Mexico, West Virginia, Maine, New York and the District of Columbia. Many of these juveniles had committed first time offences. There is also many more African American youth sentenced for life than there are white. Studies show that a sentence of life without parole for a minor is 10 times more likely for a youth of color than a white one (Arthur and Armstrong). In 2005 as a result of Roper v. Simmons the Supreme Court established that it was illegal to use the death penalty on anyone that had committed a crime under the age of 18. Later, in 2010 after the ruling of Graham v. Florida the US Supreme court ruled that sentencing a minor to life in prison without parole for cases other than murder was illegal. They decided this because of the argument that life in prison for a minor violated the 8th amendment, which states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” because life in jail for a minor can be seen as cruel and unusual punishment (U.S. Const. Amdt. 8). The rest of this paper will explore the progression of this issue over the next few years. It will discuss the case of Miller v. Alabama which questioned if life without parole for a minor that had been convicted of murder was constitutional, and the implications of this case. Also it will exp...
In order to ensure that delinquent juveniles, eighth amendment is not violated the Supreme Court has ruled not sentencing juveniles to life sentences in prison on June 25,2012. However,many American citizens believe that the indicated heinous crimes perpetrated by juveniles should indeed face life in prison? Despite the acclaim of juveniles being too young and inexperience to be transferred from an adult facility to an adult prison, for committing murder.
The dilemma of juvenile incarceration is a problem that thankfully has been declining, but still continues to be an ethical issue. The de-incarceration trend has coincided with a decrease in crime. It is hopeful that our nation is changing the approach to the treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. It means we know what to do and what is working, now just to follow through and continue the change to creating a juvenile justice system that is truly rehabilitative and gives youth tools to be able to be positive members of
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.
As time passes our juvenile justice system changes we are tending to focus on punishment rather than in rehabilitation. In the book Sister Janet was one of the few people that believed that the juveniles deserve to be treated normal and received positive s...
The punishment of juveniles by execution is a longstanding practice in our nation’s history. Throughout the last few decades, the U.S. Supreme court has been asked to determine if the execution of a juvenile, sixteen or seventeen years old at the time of the offense, represents cruel and unusual punishment. In various rulings, the U.S. Supreme court has interpreted cruel and unusual punishment to include penalties that are excessive, not proportioned to the offense, and those that do not consider the defendant’s degree of criminal culpability. One case in particular that addresses the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles is the landmark court case Roper v. Simmons.
The United States, a country who has prisons filled with juvenile delinquents. Many of the offenders are arrested for status offenses, but there are also offenders who are incarcerated for serious crimes. Are these offenders getting the treatment needed to succeed after their release? Are the punishments in the juvenile detention centers creating more problems? Is the juvenile justice system addressing the needs of those juveniles participating in the system? The answer to these questions will be answered from viewing three separate documentaries on the juvenile justice system.
In the second article “Cruel Punishment for Juveniles” the authors hold a different view from Linda J. Collier. Treating juveniles as adults only helps society to forget that they are really still kids. They feel that subjecting children to adult punishment is cruel and unusual. They think, “Most youthful wrong-doers do not become adult criminals. There are turning points----quality education, well paid work, stable marriage------ that helps young offenders become law-abiding adults.” (Pg. 637) Certain community youth programs that deal with kids have shown to work in dealing with juveniles.
Youth justice is a complex concern. There are many different ways to approach it — and just like anything else, everyone believes that their model is the most effective for reducing crime. Q’oranka Kilcher, an American actor once said “[…] it’s important for us as a society to remember that the youth within juvenile justice systems are, most of the time, youths who simply haven 't had the right mentors and supporters around them - because of circumstances beyond their control.” This seems fair. Youth may not be able to control their circumstances, but should they be responsible for their own actions and be punished? Or, should they be supported and encouraged in order to get rehabilitated? Different opinions influence different models. Four