Book Report On The Juvie Three Delinquents

They go back to Philadelphia it appears to be ghost town. No one is anywhere to be seen when. They arrive at the coffee house they see that they’ve been robbed and mother and Eliza where gone. The next day Mattie and grandfather eat breakfast. Then mattie goes to market and finds it empty when she find herself being assaulted by a older woman she rushes home and doesn’t tell grandfather. She goes to sleep and wakes to two men breaking in one man starts messing with Grandfather sword and almost hits Mattie she screams and tries to run but one man catches her. He tries getting information out of her. but grandfather finds them he tries to shoot him but gets away he then starts punching Grandfather he closes his eyes them Mattie stabs the man in the shoulder he screamed in pain and finally ran

Juror 3 an emotionally distraught man who has not been in touch with his estranged son votes guilty based on biases to young children who have lack respect to their elders this is shown when he points out to Juror 2 “I’d think we’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down before they make trouble” this enrage provokes a sense of dislike in the audience to Juror 3 as he believes that violence is the key to problem-solving. In relation to both jurors there is always seems to be tension amongst them when Juror 8 constantly reveals Juror 3’s weaknesses that is delaying them from reaching a final verdict. Rose uses these two jurors to shows how there is always one juror who will always bring out people’s imperfections.

The boys go on to stick together and when one of them doesn’t make it to the end, the other boys are still loyal and caring. For example, “Before going over to see Kemmerich, we pack up his

Seven years later all the boys are in high school. Ricky the one who wants to become a football player has a girlfriend and a baby boy. Ricky wants to become a football player because he does not want to become like his brother Doughboy, who doesn’t do anything with his life. Ricky and Doughboy are half-brothers, they have the same mother. Tre moved in with his father when he was younger so his dad can teach him to become a “man”. Tre learns life lessons from his father, there is one part in the movie where Furious, Tre’s father, says “a black man has no place in the military.” Doughboy who is Ricky’s half-brother doesn’t have any plans for his life. All he does in the movie is hang out with 3 other people on his mom’s porch drinking beer, selling drugs, carrying guns and driving around. Doughboy has been in and out of jail. Doughboy, his girlfriend

The event that changed the lives of the two families forever was when Blaze died. This meant the Blaze’s parents would never see him again. And for Alan’s family, well because of Blaze’s extravagant clothes, Alan got more confident. Blaze also gave Alan trinkets he had stolen, along with a little notebook with the names of who he had stolen the trinkets from.

In this summary response we are summarizing the article “On Punishment and Teen Killers”. In this article Jennifer Jenkins talks about her sister’s experience and how it was caused by a teenager. And what she is basically trying to make a claim on how teens do deserve to go to life sentences. But yet she does not have any experience since she is just a teacher.

In a crowded jury room in downtown New York, opinions collide as discussion about the innocence of a young boy is decided. The dark and foreboding storm clouds that hang over the heads of the jurors are beginning to lift as time progresses and new facts are presented. One juror is not happy about this stay of execution and is holding fast his opinion of guilty. Juror three, the president of his business, refuses to alter his vote or opinion in any way. Still haunted by his own son, juror three verbally assaults the group with a forceful tone and a taciturn attitude. One of twelve, Reginald Rose created them all from the same pen and ink, and they could all be no more different.

The film uses juror three to demonstrate how past experiences can influence ones prejudice in decision making. Juror 3, who has a prejudice against the accused, and thinks the kid is under-privileged and doesn’t deserve a second chance, which is reason enough for him to conclude the accused is guilty. As the discussion continues as to the verdict of the trial, juror three grows frustrated and angrily refutes, “What is this? Love your under- privileged bother week or something? (12 Angry Men). Due to his past experiences with young men, he is ready to sentence the defendant to death with weak circumstantial evidence, grows angry as the other jurors question what he refers to as “facts” and claims “You can’t refute facts” (12 Angry Men) As all the Jurors except juror twelve get more and more frustrated by the slowed process, juror three begins to see through his prejudice, and disperses the other jurors interruptions by saying “Be quiet, we’ll all get a turn”(12 Angry Men). It finally becomes clear, he sees similarities with his son he had a falling out with several years ago, and puts this prejudice aside and excepts that the evidence is too circumstantial to convict a kid for murder, and sentence him to death.

Edwin H. Sutherland’s formulation of differential association theory proposed that delinquency, like any other form of behavior, is a product of social interaction. On October 14th, 2002, 17 year old Lee Boyd Malvo was charged by the state of Virginia for two capital crimes: the murder of FBI analyst Linda Franklin "in the commission of an act of terrorism" and the murder of more than one person in a three-year period. Sutherland’s nine propositions of differential association best explains Malvo’s act for the following reasons: (1) Malvo learned how to commit each heinous crime through his social interaction within his intimate group, (2) Malvo learned the techniques to commit each crime through his mentor, i.e. learning the skills

It’s safe to assume people prejudge others based on their titles in society. As Gordon Korman demonstrates with his book The Juvie Three, full of pre judging and titles. Juvenile delinquents, is perceived as “a kid who was neglected and raised wrong”. Although that can be accurate, it can also be completely inaccurate. As everyone has a story to tell about how the ended up where they’re at.

In the text reading Delinquent Daughters: “Protecting and Policing Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States” Author Mary Odom states raising the age of sexual consent in the U.S. increased the number of people prosecuted for statutory rape among consenting teenagers. Laws Predicated on the backs of the immigrants, native Blacks, and Mexican workers who had consensual sex with the daughters of the white middle class or Working-class minorities under Patriarchal rule. Odom states due to differences in the middle and working class sexual expression, to (avoid generalizing), Odom says the differences in the sexual expression of the middle class which operated within a patriarchal moral code, and the immigrant and working-class communities, who were more concerned with female chastity. (“Patriarchal structures of the preindustrial societies, diverse religious tradition, and codes of honor that associated family reputation with the morality of wives and daughters.” Odom states that in the United States fathers/men controlled both the workforce, labor and the “sexual lives of their wives’ children and servants in ways that supported the family economy” (p.43). One threat to Patriarchal control “was the out of wedlock birth” (p.44) Thus premarital chastity was influenced by religion and men and therefore, was highly regarded. Premarital sex was considered sinful and the double standard of sexual roles was at work as “sexual promiscuity would destroy a woman’s honor, while it

Should convicted youth gang members be treated like other juvenile delinquents, including status offenders and why do you feel the way you do?

Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck 's conducted research on 500 juvenile delinquents, non-delinquents, and they also studied adult crime. They worked on this research for half a century, Sheldon was a professor at Harvard Law School during this time. The Gluecks were influenced by Dr. Richard Cabot, which lead the Professor and Eleanor to use Dr. Richards follow up studies of medical therapy, and then they were the first ones to apply this concept. It is very rare that the value of a piece of research is immediately appreciated, and that it does not sit and collect dust. The Glueck’s studies were unusual in size and they had an extensive follow-up and coverage, they also believe that factors from all disciplines are to be considered, including biological, psychological, and sociological factors.

The first juror was the foreman. He was the task leader of the group, taking initiative to sit the people down, numbering them, and telling the jurors when they could go on breaks. This juror goes over the process and rules the men will be using, and sets up the first voting. He also tries to keep the jurors on task and organized. Juror 2 is anxious man. This juror was easily persuaded to change his opinion about the case and tended to have the same opinion of the person who spoke before him. He played the role of a tension releaser which was seen when he offered the men cough drops in tense situations. Juror 3 is temperamental, opinionated, strong, loud, biased, stubborn and intolerable man. This man does not want to hear the opinions of the other jurors and is sure that the boy is guilty. He plays the part of the central negative in the group. When he doesn’t like what other people are saying he begins to yell and challenges that person speaking. He began to be dominating and blocking towards the end. Even though he did not have a statement to backup his vote, he stood alone just because he didn’t want to be proved wrong. His own problems with his son abandoning him also

Juror three is a stubborn and short-tempered person. Juror three made solid sentiments in the beginning, which actively kept him involved in the discussion but he started losing control as the discussion continued. Because he disliked Juror eight, the argument between them strengthened the discussion. His loud and demanding personality made jurors go against his claim because his rage was intolerable by others. Later in the discussion, it was also revealed that he had a poor relationship with his own son, which led to believe that this was one of the causes to his intolerance against the suspect. When Juror three understood that he is only presenting an insight of his feelings regarding his own son onto the suspect, he changed his decision.