When a young person commits a violent crime, resulting in a death of an innocent person, how many lives should be lost? This is the question at the center of the debate regarding juvenile justice. By examining both sides of the issue, one can more easily understand the complexity of the problem. After considering arguments for and against harsh treatment of juvenile offenders, it is clear that there are no winners when young people are involved in crime.
First of all, those who favor harsher punishments for young people argue that we must first consider the victims. For example, if a young gang member kills an innocent shop owner during a robbery, the victim’s family will suffer their entire lives from the loss of the loved one. Harsh sentences will bring peace to the victims. Furthermore, harsh sentences will send a strong message to other young people. To be specific, when a ten year old sees his older teenage brother put in prison for selling drugs or committing violence, the younger brother will be less likely to commit a crime himself. In this case,
…show more content…
First of all, they contend that young people are easily influenced by others. For example, many young men have unstable families and friends and peers are very influential. Without good role models, these young people can be easily convinced to participate in a crime. What is more, those you oppose harsh punishment for young people also point to the role of society. For example, many rap artists and television shows celebrate violence and crime. If society send the message that such violence is cool, kids are more likely to become involved in bad things.
Altogether, both the arguments for and against juvenile justice make strong points. However, when one thinks about both sides, it is clear that there is no easy solution. One thing is obvious society must work to find solutions to this problem that harms everyone
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
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.
Studies and anecdotes have shown that our modern approach, however, is ill-equipped to reduce crime or deal with chronic delinquents while at the same time protecting their due liberties. We now stand on the precipice of decision: How can we strike an appropriate balance in the juvenile justice system? Should we even retain a separate system for children at all? The answers are usually difficult, sometimes subtle, but always possible to attain.
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.
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.
Aftercare programs are used often with juveniles in hopes of preventing recidivism. Recidivism is of high concern to the criminal justice system in that the safety of the public depends on low recidivism rates. Juvenile Incarceration facilities have programs set up, such as education and pro-social behavior classes, to promote bettering the juvenile’s life. However, research has shown that the progress made while incarcerated slowly declines upon release. This is testimony to the importance of aftercare programs in preventing recidivism.
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).
The book “No Matter How Loud I Shout” written by Edward Humes, looks at numerous major conflicts within the juvenile court system. There is a need for the juvenile system to rehabilitate the children away from their lives of crime, but it also needs to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous of its juveniles, causing one primary conflict. Further conflict arises with how the court is able to administer proper treatment or punishment and the rights of the child too due process. The final key issue is between those that call for a complete overhaul of the system, and the others who think it should just be taken apart. On both sides there is strong reasoning that supports each of their views, causing a lot of debate about the juvenile court system.
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.
References Glick, B. (1998) No Time to Play: Youthful Offenders in Adult Correctional Systems. American Correctional Association Wilkerson, I (1996) “Death Sentence at Sixteen Rekindles Debate on Justice for Juveniles.” New York Times, November Butts, J.A. and Snyder, H. (1997) “The Youngest Delinquents: Offenders Under the Age of 15,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice) Lefevre, P.S., “Professor Grapples with Execution of Juveniles.” National Catholic Reporter Snyder, A. “Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders” (1997) National Center for Juvenile Justice
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
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.
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.
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?"
I like to think that all children below 18 are harmless human beings-that they have a fun filled life ahead of them. But what really, goes through their mind? Many psychologists have studied the brain of a child or teenager. But nothing excites them more than being able to study the brain of a kid on trial, for murder. What is going through their brain when they’re killing their best friend or parents? Some kids are smart enough to know that, in most states it is unconstitutional to send a teen or child to death row or life without parole. Kids now-a-days are smarter than the average court system. But is it fair for juvenile delinquents to be held at a different standard, even after killing someone?