Abolition Of Heinous Now Juvenile Crime

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.

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.

Today’s heated debate regarding the decision to try juveniles as adults has prompted individuals to construct opinionated and informational articles on the topic. The nation’s troubled youth are protected by groups that believe these offenders deserve rehabilitation and a chance to develop into a productive member of society. However, others believe that those committing certain heinous crimes should be tried as adults as a means to protect public safety, prevent second offenders, and “dispense justice in the form of punishment” (Aliprandini & Michael, 2016). Because these perspectives offer a reasonable and valid argument, juveniles responsible for major crimes

Did you know, that in the United States alone, Over 200,000 children are charged and imprisoned every year as adults? Early in the 20th century, most states established juvenile courts to rehabilitate and not just punish youthful offenders. The system was designed for children to have a second chance at their lives. “A separate juvenile-justice system, which sought to rehabilitate and not just punish children, was part of a movement by progressives to create a legally defined adolescence through the passage of child-labor and compulsory education laws and the creation of parks and open spaces.”(How to reduce crime Pg 1) Although the view on juveniles committing brutal crimes is nearly inconceivable, it is not a solution to give juveniles adult consequences because the effects of the adult system on juveniles are not effective.

Should juveniles get adult jail sentences? In today's society juvenile offenders are facing the law to full force, in two court systems. Not only are they tried in the juvenile justice system, but also charged as adults. The issue of charging juveniles as adults has stirred various views owing to the violent crimes committed by the young offenders. Politicians comment that the best solution is to lock up juvenile offenders for a long time and ignore rehabilitation. However, prior researches on the topic of juvenile delinquencies suggest that trying young offenders in the adult legal system and putting them in adult prisons will only lead to increased crime, higher costs, and increased violence(John & Jiangmin 568).

Many young adolescents who have committed horrendous crimes have been a huge topic amongst the Supreme Court. Whether young adolescents are viewed as innocent, naive children to the public, this not changed the fact they can commit brutal crimes. In spite of the fact that adolescents have committed brutal crimes such as murder, one needs to understand that their brains are not as fully developed as an adult brain would be. Adolescents should not be trialed to a life sentence or attend adult prisons; however, they should be punished for their actions and undergo rehabilitation programs to help them be prepared to fit in with the rest of society.

On December 14, 2012 a very deadly and upsetting incident happened in Newtown, Connecticut. The murderer was later revealed as Adam Lanza. He was a 20 year old man who had been said to have been diagnosed with a sensory integration disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder. For Lanza, growing up could be considered arduous. He had been in and out of treatment for multiple said “diagnoses” and other undiagnosed “problems”. He also took medication for his supposed OCD. His parents often would mistake his odd behaviors as a simple childhood or teenage stage. Before the school shooting, Lanza had killed his mother by lethal force at her Newton house. Lanza had shot 6 children and 20 adults fatally. After all was done, Lanza had committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

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).

Finally, this all leads to one of the largest areas of conflict when trying to evaluate the effectiveness of prison terms for repeat offenders. There are many statistics on the subject that conflict with each other. Some authors claim that trying juveniles as adults actually incorporate them into the criminal world at a youthful age and leads to a lifetime of the criminal offense. Other studies believe in the power of rehabilitation to save most, if not all, of these youths. If one looks past the statistics for a moment at the actual facts, it is clear that the tougher sentences handed out in adult courts to juveniles will help deter crime. Simply put, if the person is behind bars, there is little chance that he or she will have the opportunity to commit additional crimes. If sentences for violent crimes such as murder are for youths what they are for adults, it should keep the person locked up for a sufficient number of years. Juvenile homes attempt to punish offenders in a more gentle way by offering psychological help and other rehabilitation methods. However, the sentences in these homes tend to be lighter and shorter than the sentences doled out to those criminals who were tried in adult court. Some juvenile homes are simply too nice and the variety of detainees is too great. Some teens may be held there as runaways or shoplifters. These crimes are nowhere near as violent and damaging to society. It may actually harm the mild offenders to have contact with youths who have committed violent

Since the late 1970’s, there has been a strong correlation between mental health disorders and the perpetrators of mass shootings. “Up to 60% of the perpetrators have displayed symptoms including acute paranoia, delusions and depression before committing their crimes” (Metzl & Macleish, 2015). In the case of Adam Lanza, infamously known for the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, the history of his mental illnesses is quite extensive. However, it has been discovered that when it comes to mental illnesses, it is not influenced by one factor, but rather many factors that have integrated into the individual’s life (Sue, 2014). These factors began affecting Lanza’s life at only two years old, continuing throughout his lifetime until his heinous act of murder at the age of twenty. Throughout his

In recent decades, juvenile crime has become somewhat of a controversy due to the young age and immaturity of these criminals. Incidences of juvenile crime skyrocketed in the 1980s and 1990s, and policymakers pushed for laws that sent children as young as thirteen years old to trial, and even made them eligible for prison sentences. The general public has expressed a common desire to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime and find effective legislation to discipline these youths, but there are questions about these methods. What is more effective, incarceration or rehabilitation? Does criminal punishment intimidate more youths away from a life of crime, and would productive rehabilitation efforts influence these youths to becoming more valuable members of society?

Juvenile delinquency has been a problem in the United States ever since it has been able to be documented. From 100 years ago to now, the process of juvenile delinquency has changed dramatically; from the way juveniles are tried, to the way that they are released back into society, so that they do not return back to the justice system (Scott and Steinberg, 2008). Saying this, juveniles tend to

It is a common believe that adolescents require a special system thru which be processed because they are “youth who are in a transitional stage of development…young offenders that are neither innocent children nor mature adults…” (Nelson, 2012). Because juveniles are in a process of constant development sociologically, psychologically and physiologically, the juvenile court system focuses on alternative sentences and the creation of programs that will offer them rehabilitation instead of incarceration. However, in cases of extraordinary circumstances, the juvenile system shifts from looking at rehabilitation as a first choice to accountability and punishment (Read, n.d). All levels of society are collectively involved in delinquency

A common assumption about young people who commit violent crimes is that they are simply born evil and that nothing good can come of their lives. From this perspective, the only solution is to punish these young offenders by locking them up, either in prison or in a place for teenagers designed to make their lives as miserable as possible. Such an approach suggests that young people who hurt or kill others are untreatable. It also suggests that more prisons must be built to make our communities safe. This assumption, however, is a false one. Research shows that violent young offenders can be treated and reformed. In addition, it shows that when young people fail to receive treatment,it does

In Canada, the juvenile court was established as a tribunal having the sole jurisdiction to hear, process as well as pass judgments for illegal behaviour that are committed by youths. This is a court system that fully distinguishes youths from adults as far as crime is concerned where their misconduct is labeled as delinquent acts rather than crime (Barry, 1987, p. 476). Youth are presumed to have less understanding of social norms and they are less aware of the long-term consequences of their behaviour. Unlike punishment or reprimanding, the juvenile court system acts as a rehabilitation facility for youth offenders (Barry,1993, p. 204). Over the past decade, there has been ongoing debate over the abolition of the juvenile justice system which places an emphasis on the court 's responsibility to continue defining legal violations by youth offenders as delinquency (rehabilitate), or to define them as crimes and transfer the youth to criminal court (for punishment). Barry Feld, a professor from the University of Minnesota Law School argues that judicial decisions, legislative amendments, and administrative change have altered the juvenile court from a rehabilitative social welfare agency into a “scaled-down second-class criminal court” for youth offenders; consequently, youth offenders are frequently not granted their constitutional rights in juvenile courts (Barry, 1997, p. 68). In light of these failures, Feld proposed that juvenile courts should be abolished and