A Research Study On Juvenile Life Without Parole

In the article “On Punishment and Teen Killers” by Jennifer Jenkins asserts that teens are becoming more violent and starting commit more crimes because of the national television they watch.Jenkins tells the reader about “JLWOP” (Juvenile Life Without Parole) and how kids are being sentenced to life in prison without parole.Some people are trying to advocate to minimize the offender culpability because of their age.While kids are getting sentenced to life without parole, this disproves juvenile advocates reliance on the undeveloped brain.Some juvenile offenders truly understand what the victim family go through and how long it takes them to recover.There were millions of dollars spent to end JLWOP and to set convicted murderers free.

On December 17, 1992, 15 year-old Jacob Ind went to school after having murdered his mother and stepfather in the early hours of that morning. In an interview with Frontline he recalled, “I remember I was sitting in the police station and this is how out of touch of reality I was. I had a small amount of marijuana, like an eighth of an ounce, in my bedroom. And I 'm telling my brother, 'You got to get the marijuana or else I 'm in trouble” (Profile Jacob Ind). His attorneys contended that he was acting in self-defense, claiming that the murders were the climax of years of insult by his parents. On June 17, 1994, he was convicted and handed a mandatory sentence of lifetime without parole. This is just one of many life experiences of juveniles sentenced to life without parole in the U.S. There have been many other instances where the juvenile was not the real murderer, but was however given the lifetime without parole sentence. In those instances the defendant would have been convicted of felony murder, in which the defendant could have just been an active participant in a crime during which a murder was committed and consequently, spend life in jail without parole. Felony murder came into play in the case of Devon and Jovon Knox, in July 2007, the 17-year-old twins set out to steal a car together (Sentencing Juveniles). During the car jack, one of the brothers shot and killed the car’s owner. The panel could not decide which brother pulled

Garinger was a former juvenile court judge, so Garinger is a very credible source when it comes to the topic of juvenile criminals. To support Garinger’s credible usage of ethos, he demonstrates that in 2005, Supreme Court acknowledged that even though juveniles have committed terrible crimes such as homicide “juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders” (6). This technique of providing the opinions of Supreme Court helps build Garinger’s credibility, and even more so that he is was a former juvenile court judges, so he most likely has a personal relationships with the Supreme Court. Readers feel sympathy to any juvenile who have been charged as adults and been sentenced to life without parole.

The research done for this paper examines different studies of juveniles and their place in the United States’ justice system based on their race, gender, and social class, as well as looks into policing tactics that may be beneficial to the affected youths. By looking at a wide variety of academic journals and books it was clear to see that youths are looked upon and treated differently depending on what their race is, the sex that they were born, or their family’s economic standing. Resulting in the outcome of these youths being treated more harshly than others due to aspects about themselves that are out of their control. Doing further research into the juvenile justice system and how it is structured to help certain youths while neglecting others, it is clear that the treatment of minority youths is entirely unjust and that a reform of this system is, without question, necessary, not only to maintain an even and fair justice system for juveniles, but also to help these minority youths strive in their lifetime rather than fall victim to a life of crime.

“Sentenced young: The story of life without parole for juvenile offenders” by Beth Schwartzapfel tells the story of two women: Jennifer Pruitt and Donnell Miracle and the sad truth behind life sentences

Skip Hollandsworth candidly explores the subjects of juvenile crime and sentencing in the electronic long form newspaper article, “The Prisoner”. The purpose of the essay is to inform the reader about juvenile sentencing and to persuade the audience that there are clear problems with aspects of the U.S. prison system. The article is easily accessible to a large audience because it is online. Hollandsworth takes into account that his audience, mostly consisting of Texas Monthly readers, may already have pre-established notions about the topic, so he considers other sides while still supporting his argument. Edwin Debrow, a preteen member of the Crips, committed a murder when he was 12-years old and received a 27-year sentence through the

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

The U.S. leads the world in the practice of sentencing juveniles to life without parole, claiming 99.7 percent of all youth globally serving this sentence. In fact, there are only seven such cases outside of the U.S. Concurrently, The House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security has been gathering testimony on a bill H.R. 2289 Juvenile Justice and Accountability and Improvement Act; this bill would mandate parole hearings for JLWOP prisoners. This bill covers federal cases and gives

Some juvenile delinquents are being treated like adults and being sent to adult prisons instead of juvenile prisons. In an article called “ADULT PRISONS: No Place for Kids,” by Steven J. Smith, Smith presents an argument against treating juveniles like adults. His argument states that minors shouldn’t be trialed and placed into adult prisons because instead of being rehabilitated, they typically come out worse because of the daily exposure to already hardened criminals. Smith provides reasons why juveniles are convicted as adults, the drawbacks of placing adolescents in prisons with adults, and an alternative punishment for juvenile criminals.

The history of the juvenile justice system came into play because young people who were accused of a crime were imprisoned with adults. They made the juvenile justice system because they thought that they should deal with youth separate from adults because of their lack of maturity to grasp what they have done wrong. “In many jurisdictions, African-American youth were overrepresented in felony charges filed in adult courts compared to their percentage in the felony arrest population; this was most evident in charges for drug and public order offenses” (Juszkiewics, J., & Schindler, M, 2001). These have always been a differential difference in the treatment of African American males and

Capital punishment for juveniles is one of the most controversial topics to ever be explored in society and in the criminal justice system. The death penalty is a rare occurrence amongst juveniles since it is so arguable as to whether they should be tried as adults. Lynn Cothern from the Juvenile Justice Resource Center suggests that “the primary purpose of the juvenile justice system is to hold juvenile offenders accountable for delinquent acts while providing treatment, rehabilitative services, and programs designed to prevent future involvement in law-violating behavior” (Cothern). The juvenile death penalty has been argued over for centuries and has stirred enough people to still be around today. While juveniles have been known to commit heinous crimes, sentencing a juvenile to death is an inhumane and cruel fate to serve someone who is incapable of making rational lifelong decisions, and should not be allowed in the juvenile justice system.

Various scholars have determined that, “life without parole is examined as a form of death penalty, namely, death by incarceration as distinct from death by execution” in order to determine the difficulties that juveniles face when not given the option to serve their sentence through probation or parole (Johnson, Mcgunigall-Smith 2008, p.

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.

More than a quarter of juveniles given life without parole were not the main perpetrator of the crime, and nearly half of all youth given life without parole did not actually commit the murder (CFSY). This means that over a thousand people have had their entire lives just thrown away for murders it is known they did not commit. Part of the reason for this is mandatory sentencing. Life without parole for adolescents should not be a mandatory sentence, as it leads to unfair rulings and does not consider the individual situation. For example, Kuntrell Jackson of Arkansas was only fourteen when he and two other boys decided to rob a video store. One of the boys, Jackson’s cousin, threatened a shop clerk with

The survey that was conducted for this research project was geared toward my classmates and how they feel towards juveniles receiving the death penalty. The survey geared towards yes or no questions but giving explanations on why they choose yes or no. The survey had ten questions with three of those questions having to justify their answer (see appendix A). All questions concentrated on juvenile capital punishment and whether juveniles were in their right mind when committing their heinous crimes. The survey had seventeen anonymous participants and a little more than half agreed with juveniles receiving capital punishment. Some of the participants were a little harsh towards the death penalty with juveniles as little as fifteen being able to receive capital punishment. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, which is why this survey was conducted, to gather Intel on what others believe on capital punishment for juveniles. One participant said, “Nowadays, juveniles are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. We have so many different crimes happening in the US right now that they know better. Their punishment should fit their crime. If they murder, it should be life. If they rape, it should be at least 15 years.” Others disagreed but