Adults Vs Juveniles

One of the most controversial questions in the juvenile justice system today is, "Should the death penalty be applied to juveniles?”. A lot of people think that the death penalty for juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment and should only be used for adults. The crimes that juveniles commit are as dangerous and as violent as adult crimes. People argue that the adolescent brain does not mature until the late teens or early twenties, and that death penalty should not be the resolution. Some studies show that childhood abuse or neglect can causes the child to commit crimes when they grow to adulthood. Debate about the use of the death penalty for juveniles has grown more intense because of the crimes they are

In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While

Juveniles should not receive severe adult sentences for the murders they commit due to their underdeveloped prefrontal cortex not allowing them to fully process decisions and consequences at a young age. In fact, the prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain where decision making originates and does not fully develop until the age of 25. Furthermore, sentencing a juvenile as an adult while they are at an impulsive age and subject to peer pressure is resulting to cruel and unusual punishment as defined in the eighth amendment of the United States Bill of Rights. Eventually, imposing an adult verdict over a juvenile would inhibit a proper rehabilitation for the convicted juvenile. Hence, it is recommended that states that currently have life without parole or the death penalty laws, ratify a new law for juvenile convicts for proper sentencing and rehabilitation.

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

Five years after Roper v. Simmons, this case decided that it is unconstitutional to give a non-homicide juvenile offender a sentence of life without parole without the chance of being able to mature and obtain rehabilitation if necessary (CITATION). A brief overview of this case involves a sixteen-year-old and three accomplices attempting to rob a restaurant. Graham was then prosecuted as an adult to the crime in which he pled guilty to and the result was that he received three years of probation. During his time on probation he was arrested again for armed burglary and attempted armed robbery. Because the crime was committed in Florida, he could either receive a minimum sentence of five years or a maximum sentence of life without parole. He was sentenced to the maximum for each charge which in turn was a sentence of life without parole.

This paper is an attempt to understand and point out the flaws in the legal system that has of late in many cases begun to treat juveniles in the same footing as adult offenders. There is a raging controversy over this move that makes young offenders to be tried and incarcerated just as if the crime was done by an adult. The arguments over this have been made in the Supreme Court and the land mark judgement Roper Vs Simmons (1995). However it is submitted that simple observations of the post procedure effects on young persons have not been verified or recorded properly. If this system continues, would it not be against the logic of creating the juvenile justice system

Simmons (2005), the Court ruled “that those under the age of 18 could not be sentenced to the death penalty, holding that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the US Constitution when applied to juveniles (Liles & Moak, 2015, p. 78).” In Roper, the Court addressed issues of juvenile maturity, vulnerability, external influences, development, and culpability. In their holding, the Court cited inherent differences distinct to a juvenile, stating that the juvenile’s culpability must be considered in capital punishment decisions. The decision in Roper exclusively established differences between juveniles and adults for death penalty cases. At this time, juveniles could still be sentenced to life without parole.

At the end of the 19th Century, the U.S. made legal history when the world's first juvenile court opened in Chicago(Horwitz-Prisco). The court was founded on two basic principles. First, juveniles lacked the maturity to take responsibility for their actions the way adults could. Second, because their character was not yet fully developed, they could be rehabilitated more successfully than adult criminals. More than a century later, these principles remain the benchmarks of juvenile justice in the United States(Horowitz-Prisco).In recent years, however, a growing number of juvenile criminals are being tried as adults. In part this stems from public outrage against children who are committing violent crimes. Many young children in America are

For years may people have debated whether or not juveniles should be tried as adults for serious crimes. The juvenile justice system was established in the year 1899(Long). Laws were first created to handle small cases such as truancy, shoplifting, and vandalism (Estudillo). Since 1993, at least 43 states have passed laws making it easier for children to be tried as adults (Estudillo). Juveniles should be tried as adults because by the time they’re about 12 they know that murder is wrong, if they’re grown up enough to kill someone then they’re old enough for adult consequences, and a lot of kids see the juvenile justice system as a way to get away with crime.

Thousands of youths have to go through the Juvenile Justice System every year. Sentencing is unfairly given to many of these youths that end up going through The Juvenile Justice System has become a school for criminals. The sentencing has become biased. Barry C. Feld is one of the nation's leading scholars of Juvenile Justice. He received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania, his J.D. from the University of Minnesota, and his Ph.D. in sociology from Harvard University where he was a Russel Sage Foundation Fellow in Law and the Social Sciences ( “Feld, Berry | University of Minnesota Law School,” n.d.). He wrote the article Justice for Juveniles. Justice for Juveniles is an article outlining various issues and solutions

This paper examines the effectiveness of the American justice system surrounding juvenile offenders not yet responsible for their punishable acts. Although the purpose of the juvenile justice system is the rehabilitate and deter juvenile offenders from breaking laws, evidence suggests the justice system is ineffective and unjust. The sentencing of juveniles is unjust and ineffective because juveniles are not mentally developed enough to make rational decisions, incarcerating juveniles is costly, and youth incarceration does not discourage youth from committing more crimes, and the incarceration of juveniles often results in mental and physical abuse of the youth.

In the light of extreme juvenile cases, the juvenile system has conceded age exceptions, by allowing juveniles that commit heinous crimes to be divided into a system where they aren’t tried as an adult based on the fact that they’re only kids. If the belief that they are only kids, shouldn’t they learn that when their kids, the actions they commit have consequences. Although it’s understandable if the juvenile system argues, that for many kids, their parents play a huge part on their developments, but in the case that there is parental neglect, and they don’t know the consequences of their actions, then they shouldn’t be tried as an adult, largely based on the fact that they don’t have parents to teach them values, and the result is that their brains are incapable of knowing the capacities of their actions. If this is the result, then the reasons to not tried them as an adult, is correct, but the reasons to

Elrod, P., & Ryder, R. S. (2014). Juvenile justice: a social, historical, and legal perspective

According to statistics, juveniles being tried as adults is not a new phenomenon. Since the beginning of the juvenile court, juveniles have been eligible to be tried as adults for the commission of capital crimes. However, starting in the 1960s and 1970s and mounting in the 1980s and 1990s, there has been an extensive upsurge in the number of juveniles tried as adults as well as a rise in research on the topic. This increase has coincided with the proliferation of laws that cover and dictate

The juvenile justice system was founded on the belief that children are different from adults; therefore, the justice system and corrections sanctions for juveniles should acknowledge the differences. “Rising juvenile crime rates during the 1970s and 1980s spurred state legislatures across the country to exclude or transfer a significant share of offenders under the age of eighteen to the jurisdiction of the criminal court” (Fagan, 2008). The acknowledgement of these differences should be the bases for a proper juvenile justice system. The examination of the juvenile justice’s systems history, trends, and causation theories will provide an insight into the future of the juvenile justice system.