Ten year old boy murders his family. Does he get out when he turns eighteen, because he knows not what he did? Or does he spend the rest of his life in prison? Sometimes teenagers are tried for crimes as adults and face equal penalties that are subject to adults. This is a controversial issue among Americans. There are two groups of people. Those who believe that teenagers under the age of eighteen who commit serious crimes should be held responsible as adults for their actions.
Courts are said to be too lenient and the young Juveniles are evolving into violent youth criminals; And there are those who suggest that teenagers are less likely to understand the consequences of their actions and more likely to become productive citizens if the criminal Justice system continues to treat eighteen year olds as juveniles. Juvenile death penalties and life sentences without parole have increased at an estimated rate of three times higher today than fifteen years ago. The youth are still growing to become fully developed, like an adult.
There are many cases where tough decisions have to be made and choices must be made by officials. In my opinion all youths at the age of eighteen or younger should be tried as Juveniles and al our Juvenile courts need to focus more on rehabilitation for the lost of youth to criminal acts. Age should be a factor, not a determinant on how these youths should be tried. In the United States, Juveniles involved with the law are treated differently than adults. However, this has not always been the case. In earlier times, children were thrown into Jails with adults.
Long prison terms and corporal punishment were common during this crucial time as a child. Some children were even sentenced to death for some crimes that seem relatively minor to today’s standards. Trying eighteen year olds as adults was a tradition until the nineteenth century, when the separation of adult and Juvenile offenders began. Society started a refuge house for young offenders for rehabilitation of delinquents in New York City. The popular belief in 1825 was that children are not as morally advanced as adults and more capable of reform. (Schwartz Robert G. The system process of separation of adult and Juvenile offenders spread throughout other states, creating separate hearings for Juveniles. In 1899, Jane Addams was the first to help create the first Juvenile court in Chicago. Schwartz Robert G. ) The courts purpose was to focus on protection and rehabilitation, for the offenders best interest. In 1925, almost all of the states had Juvenile courts. The number of Juvenile courts increases to most states, and Judges were granted more freedom to determine the final sentencing for defendants. Why were judges given this power?
To act as a parent or guardian of the country. Given the wide range of freedom given to Judges it made the hearings less formal. It is important for courts to be formal when dealing with the conviction of someone actions. (Schwartz Robert G. Sometimes Juvenile courts, ran hearings without present Juvenile Justice: Should 18 year-olds be tried as adults? By sauerkraut’s juveniles to rehabilitate instead of throwing them into adult prisons where they will never learn to rehabilitate, and when it is time for those prisoners who have served twenty five years, what happens then?
During 1950-1960, criticism against Juvenile courts began. (legitimate) Many who watched the system noted that courts are not doing enough to prevent Juvenile crimes. Another group notes that certain features of the Juvenile Justice system comprises the rights of the defendants, such as not avian a lawyer present. Many who support trying eighteen year olds as adults claim that Juveniles must be prevented from committing crimes for the sake of the Americans and themselves. Juvenile courts are said to be too lenient and do not establish sufficiently inflictive sentence.
Transferring Juvenile defendants to adult criminal court is the best way to ensure Juvenile defendants adequately to punish, if convicted. Juveniles are seen to be evolving into violent youth criminals if there is no strict establishment that will prevent them from committing more and more crimes. (Donna Rattail Physically operating violent youth from society will help keep them from committing crimes. While this is happening they are getting time to understand the crimes that they committed. Eventually the goal would be to ensure that the delinquents are going to be prepared to come back into society in a better stage of life.
Also officials use common criminal record patterns to determine an “escalator,” when a delinquent shows that they are increasing involvement and it has come to point where a line has to be drawn by subjecting punishments or treatments. (Allen John) Paul Robinson, former member of the U. S. Enticing commission said that ” dealing with fourteen year olds in adult court rooms is admitting what everybody knows?juvenile Justice is ineffective in stopping teenage violence. ” Noon Dilution) Teenage violence is not being handled with Justice; the courts have proven to be too lenient.
Violent crime rates by age of victims statistically prove that adolescents of age eighteen are increasing violent crimes, between the ages sixteen to nineteen the only age group who seems to increase the rate of violent crimes compared to the other age groups younger and older. Kent Marcus, head of the youth crime division at the Justice department, bouts the traditional premise underlying Juvenile court that all children are different from adults and they need to be treated accordingly by the Justice system.
Boot camps, John Dilution, National Center for Juvenile Justice, Donna Ratify, Juvenile Crime Control Act, and the Operation Night Light have all reported that something has to be done to stop violent youth criminals. Juvenile courts are becoming too lenient and delinquents are evolving into criminals. On behalf of the Juvenile defendants, it is important to know the outcomes of trying eighteen year olds as adults. Society has long recognized between adults and venires, most of the Juveniles committing the crime are from horrible communities in a horrible home, all they have known is a world with crime.
If incarcerated they will just continue knowing a world with crime and nothing more. How can they possibly be tried as adults, when they are physically incapable of thinking like one? Juveniles signatures are invalid. Why? Because adolescents are physically incapable of making mature, responsible, well-processed decisions; and this isn’t Just because of lack of inexperience in life. Adolescent brains are not fully developed until at least the age of 20. A researcher stated, “My children who are now 21 and 25, definitely needed help with the thinking through process.
There were times during their adolescence when they found the things I tried to teach them difficult to understand,” she said. “However, they were eventually able to grasp the concept six months or even a year or more later. So it appears that their development caught up with my teachings. (Kristin Rollins) They lack the frontal cortex, the lobe of the brain that helps with reasoning and Judgment. Teens also do not have a fully developed cerebellum, the area of the brain that helps control impulse.
Without these two physical heartsickness that separate the men from the boys, teenagers can not possibly be expected to endure the same consequence as fully matured adults. Research shows that the rate at which Juvenile violators of the law turn their lives around as opposed to older violators is remarkable. With the use of rehabilitation, psychological guidance, and some punishment is efficient to teenagers who are convicted of crimes. Sentencing a twelve year old to life in prison Just seems morally unjust, especially when he has a high probability of turning his life around with some help.
I do however think the severity of the crime is important. I do believe that, in some specific cases, some children who conduct heinous and outrageously violent crimes should be sentenced more severely, but I still believe in psychological evaluation as the child gets older. Sentence Juveniles as Juveniles, because that is what they are. Juveniles shouldn’t be tried as adults because they should not be held to the same standards of accountability as adults because sometimes they Just don’t know any better. My first contention is that Juveniles are not capable of meaningful participation in their own defense.
Even though youths may develop the capacity for understanding rights early in adolescence, it often takes additional time and life experience and brain growth before their capacity influences their actual understanding. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is different than understanding long term consequences. For many Juveniles, past experience with authority provides little reason for them to imagine that an adult in a professional role would take their side against other adults in a legal process.
The primary goal of the Juvenile system is to rehabilitate and treat, whereas the goal of the criminal system is to give punishment proportional to the crime. Therefore, my second contention is that Justice is better served by rehabilitation. Putting young offenders in adult prisons only leads to more crime, higher prison costs, and increased violence. The consequences of a conviction in an adult criminal court are heavier, but the adult court itself may present challenges during the trial.
Most minors lack the reasoning skills to understand what is expected, asked or owed to them by the police, the prosecution and the Judge. Even when the Juvenile does understand his or her rights, the minor may still lack the experience to use them correctly. Given that actual adults often have trouble understanding their rights this can be a particularly ugly fight for juveniles treated as adults. Some common legal mistakes Juveniles make are: are common because Juveniles don’t fully understand the right to remain silent. Falsely believing they must speak in court.
Believing any information regarding their legal status from a police officer or a prosecutor. Making or accepting plea deals should not be done without the assistance of a defense attorney. Waiving their right to a public defender because of a misplaced distrust of authority figures or a countermanding that the defense attorney won’t help them. These children are being punished with life sentences at the youngest age of seven. When Juveniles are being tried as adults they may be subject to the death penalty which is allowed in thirty-eight states. Went states permit executions for Juveniles who commit crimes. Fifteen states set the minimum age at sixteen. Five states require offenders to be seventeen at the time. , and Texas has become big on death row. The majority of executions come from Texas thirteen out of eighteen executions in Texas, Virginia, ND Oklahoma. In other words , parents had failed to teach their children proper values and respect for authority. The solution that evolved was for a separate juvenile court to assume the responsibility that had been the parents’ Job.
Instead of punishing young people, through the adult system, a separate Juvenile court would seek to rehabilitate them by taking moralistic approach and trying to help them learn values. Although there are many pros and cons in trying eighteen year olds as adults there is a thicker line that separates young children of eighteen years of age or monger and adults. Juveniles have been proven to show incapability’s of understanding serious criminal actions and the following consequences and the system process.
Brains do not fully developed until the age of twenty-five or older. Adults are punished for crimes, while Juveniles are sent to Juvenile hall to become more productive citizens. There are many alternatives to trying eighteen year olds as adults, for example in the state of Massachusetts it is against the law to try eighteen year olds as adults. Though regulations have been conversed with official requiring al Juveniles to attend school and a requirements to ensure they are healthy and showing progress.