Criminal Crime : A Crime, Assault, Burglary, And Assault

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

Approximately two million adolescents a year are arrested and out of that two million, 60,000 of them are incarcerated according to the American Journal of Public Health. The 60,000 incarcerated adolescents each year are being tried as adults in court because of the serious crimes they have committed. The crimes they have committed are anything from armed robbery to murder. Some juveniles might be first time offenders and others might be repeat offenders. Crimes have always been a major issue in the United States and can cause controversy in the criminal justice system. Charging a minor as an adult in criminal court varies from state to state based on each state’s jurisdiction. Some states consider anyone up to the age of 18 still a juvenile and would not be charged as an adult in criminal court, but other states may charge a juvenile as an adult at the age of 16 or 17. Jordan (2014) states, “Although states already had methods for transferring youth to the adult system, as a result of the growing fear of juvenile violence, most states implemented new laws to increase the number of youth entering the adult criminal system’ (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Torbet et al., 1996)” (p. 315). While it sounds beneficial to incarcerate more adolescents in the adult criminal justice system to avoid juveniles from committing crimes in the future, that is not always the case. Incarcerating these juveniles can be life changing in a negative

Minors are a diverse group that varies in terms of the severity of criminal acts they commit, the frequency with which they commit criminal acts, how early they begin their criminal career, and how long they commit these crimes for. For many minors, juvenile lawlessness is a short-lived flirtation that disappears as quickly as it emerges. It is common and even normal for minors to engage in trivial forms of misbehavior and delinquency as they mature through adolescence and enter adulthood. However, for some minors, juvenile lawlessness has a more troubling meaning.

People feel that the American justice system constructs upon holding perpetrators accountable for their actions. Most states in America believe by setting harsh sentences that this will act as a deterrent to other juveniles who are considering committing crimes. There may be some veracity to trying juveniles as adults. The juvenile arrest rate reported by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shows that, “The juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate increased in the mid-2000s, and then declined through 2012 to its lowest level since at least 1980. The rate in 2012 was 38% below its 1980 level and 63% below the peak year of 1994. In 2012, there were 182 arrests for Violent Crime Index offenses for every 100,000 youth between 10 and 17 years of age. If each of these arrests involved a different juvenile, which is unlikely, then no more than 1 in every 544 person’s ages 10-17 was arrested for a Violent Crime Index offense in 2012, or less than one-fifth of 1% of all juveniles ages 10 to 17 living in the states.” This rating shows that by trying juveniles as adults has coincided considerably with the lowering rate of juvenile

Many adults come up with many reasons why youth involve themselves with acts of violence, there is never an actual answer to why they committed the crime, but the question of why they are being tried as an adult. Vicious misconduct is well-defined by the Division of Juvenile Justice as “murder, rape, severe attacks, and theft. These are all actions that sound terrible and cause for harsh consequences. Unluckily, there is an increasing development of adolescent violence; even “kids” under the age of sixteen are engaging in these vicious acts. When a child comes of age, they advance to being able to enjoy but not abuse adult liberties. Adolescents attain a

Today’s court system comes with many crucial outcomes. The most questionable outcome is whether teens should be tried as adults. Many people are against the idea of teens being tried as adults in courts and argue that they are immature but, most teens had the mental capacity as an adult to plan a murder. Crimes that teens have committed have been in the felony level which is the type of crimes adults have made. Juvenile delinquents should be treated as adults in courts because they have committed unforgivable felonies; therefore, they should not have any leniency while in court because of their age.

In the 1800’s, children were considered property of their parents. If a juvenile committed a crime, the parents would shell out the punishment, and the court system was not involved at all. Parents believed that youth were vulnerable, fragile, innocent and in need of protection and understanding. The Juvenile Justice system was developed with this same concept in mind. If we already acknowledged that children should not be able to be tried as adults and we created a juvenile system to correct this, why would anyone want to try juveniles as adults? The answer is simple; we shouldn’t. What we need to do is improve our juvenile system. There are people who believe that juveniles should be tried as adults for any crimes that they commit and should not be treated any differently. This paper will explore the arguments for and against trying juveniles as adults.

Over twenty five thousand people have been violently killed this year in America, and while the US has an amazing criminal justice system, many of those crimes were committed by juveniles. It is noteworthy, however, that many of those, in turn, were not truly guilty, but simply made a bad choice. The truth is, an adult’s sentence makes finding housing and jobs harder, and juveniles may receive a sentence similar to an adult’s, despite their age. In addition, even the juvenile justice system, not to mention the adult one, can increase the odds of breaking the law again in life, and teenagers’ brains simply have difficulty in decision-making, for no fault of their own. It follows that children should receive less punishing sentences than adults.

As more minors are committing violent crimes, the question of whether they should be tried as adults has arisen. Children as young as 13 or 14 are committing violent crimes such as murder, rape, and armed robbery. Some of these children are being tried as adults while others are being tried as juveniles and receiving milder punishments. A juvenile offender may receive a few years in a juvenile detention facility and possibly probation following his release at age eighteen. An adult committing the same violent crime will receive a much harsher penalty, often years in jail, possibly a life sentence, with little or no chance of parole. The only difference between the two offenders is the age at which they committed the crime. Juveniles over

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.

Many tough-on-crime advocates call for certain juvenile crimes to be automatically heard in adult criminal courts with convicted criminals subject to sentencing under adult standards. Such proposals focus on the gravity of the act and its immediate impact on the victim and society, rather than on the inner motivations of the young perpetrator. Although intention plays some role in determining the severity of the crime, considerations of the juvenile’s

“Among the youngest of these juvenile exonerees (12-to-15-year-olds), 69 percent confessed to homicides and rapes that they did not commit.” Psychological research has found that the more undeveloped a teenager is, the more likely he or she is to pleading guilty under pressure to a crime that he or she did not commit. It should not be unanticipated that young minds are more vulnerable to the power of suggestion, especially in threatening circumstances involving authority figures, and every parent and teacher knows that, juveniles are much more likely than adults to value short-term gains over long-term penalties when making their choices, but what is surprising is that police detectives do not seem to be taking these issues into consideration when interrogating young witnesses and suspects of corruptions.

Juvenile offending is a concern in society today. Juveniles account for approximately 19% of the population but are responsible for 29% of criminal arrests (Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001). Crime overall has been found to be decreasing throughout the last two decades. The issue is that the rate in which adult crime is decreasing is significantly greater than the rate in which juvenile crime is decreasing. Since the rate of juvenile crime is so high, juvenile delinquents are seen as predators and many believe they lack morals. The way in which media of today’s society constructs juvenile delinquency impacts the views of a community towards their youth and youth offenders. Media presents an inaccurate image of youth offenders as violent predators (Rhineberger-Dunn, 2013). This inaccurate image significantly promotes the myths that juvenile crime is rising, juveniles commit crimes that are primarily violent, and that juveniles are highly effected by recidivism and continue committing crimes into adulthood (Bohm, & Walker, 2013). It has already been stated though that crime rates have been decreasing over the last two decades so the first myth is refuted. The myth that juveniles primarily commit violent crimes is also very off. In most cases, juveniles are involved in property crimes and although there are some violent crime cases, they are very rare. When these rare violent crimes do occur, youth can be tried in adult court. The

  The punishment of juvenile criminals, specifically those between the ages of 13 and 18, in the event that they commit crimes of murder, is not severe enough. Minors between these critical ages in the teenage life who commit crimes of murder should be prosecuted as adults in all situations and locations.

In the event that minors who carry out rough unlawful acts were attempted as grown-ups and rebuffed as grown-ups, the quantity of fierce wrongdoings conferred by adolescents would decay. Thus, later on the quantity of brutal wrongdoings when all is said in done would decay as stiffer punishments and disciplines would be utilized to keep fierce wrongdoers in jail for more sentences. Rough law violations can be characterized as homicide, assault, outfitted theft, disturbed strike, burglary robbery and so forth relying upon state law (pbs.org). As indicated by insights the quantity of vicious law violations submitted by individuals less than 18 years old has declined since its top in 1994 (pbs.org). This shouldn 't imply that that brutal wrongdoing among adolescents is exceptional. Of the 2.5 million adolescents captured in 1999, 104,000 of the captures were for rough wrongdoings (pbs.org). "Adolescents represented 16 percent of all vicious wrongdoing captures and 32 percent of all property wrongdoing captures in 1999" (pbs.org). The later numbers in specific urban areas paint a gloomier picture. In Minneapolis, 63 percent of all fierce wrongdoing and property burglary suspects were adolescents in 2005 (Johnson). Milwaukee, Washington, D.C., and Boston are confronting comparative