Justice Alito's Failure Of The Juvenile Justice System

The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of mandatory life sentences without parole enforced upon persons aged fourteen and younger found guilty of homicide. The court declared unconstitutional a compulsory sentence of life without parole for children. The states have been barred from routinely imposing sentences based on the crime committed. There is a requirement for individual consideration of the child life circumstance or the defendant status as a child. The court rejected the definite ban on life sentences without parole. This is because in some cases the instances may be uncommon, but jurors

These cases both received national and international attention but the notoriety of the cases should not detract from the poorly thought out public policy that supports the rendering of such excessive and non-individualized punishments to juveniles. In a society that is focused on law and order it has become acceptable for the prosecution of all criminals defendant, including juveniles, to be controlled by automatic, legislatively determined sentencing that places politicians, not judges, in the position of deciding who is incarcerated, who should be tried and punished as adults, and who should be sent to a juvenile program for possible rehabilitation. On the juvenile level, led by politicians who rose to power on a law and order platform, state laws were changed so that sentencing decisions on juveniles that were once based on child development theories are now based on strict statutory construction. This was clearly demonstrated in the Tate case

On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles should not be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole because it is against the English Amendment’s ban on unusual punishment. Justice Elena Kagan noted in the way that juveniles should be sentenced to life in prison. But four justices, including justice Alito disagreed with Kagan, and argued that juveniles must be gotten a chance to release to society. So, I agree with justice Alito because I think juveniles do not have fully-thought to do something, they cannot be the same as adults. They will become better, to make decisions and think through their actions when they get older. Therefore, we should give them a chance so, they can prove themselves that they can

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.

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.

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.

There are many controversial issues in our world today, and each of those issues is well debated by people who either support it or absolutely loathe it. One of those highly debated controversial issues is the juvenile death penalty. Since the Roper v. Simmons case in 2005, sentencing juveniles to death is considered illegal on the grounds that it violates the Eighth Amendment rights (Babcock 6). Although it is considered illegal in the United States, it is still a highly debated problem. There are people that believe the juvenile death penalty is an effective punishment and should not be illegal. On the other hand, many believe that the juvenile death penalty is an extreme punishment and should not be an option when it comes to sentencing juveniles. With such a critical issue, it is only considered fair to understand both sides opinions about the juvenile death penalty.

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 United States was the only country in the United Nations (UN) to oppose the abolition of the life without parole sentence for juveniles. The US was also the only country in the UN known to sentence juveniles to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, that is until the 2012 Supreme Court Ruling that mandatory life without parole sentencing for juveniles was deemed unconstitutional (Agyepong 83). Life without the possibility of parole for minors is a very controversial and sensitive subject, with overall speculation that such a stance violates the Eighth Amendment by virtue of its nature as cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles. To argue for the claim that minors are not culpable for their actions and that the mandatory life

Garinger in the article “Juveniles Don't Deserve Life Sentences” explains that the juvenile justice systems should lower the age at which children could be transferred to adult courts.Graninger supports her claim by first explaining how superpredators predicted juvenile crime rate.She then explains how the court have been giving juveniles bad punishments such as sentenced to life without parole.Lastly, the author explains how people often are still in the decision whether they think juveniles will change or not.Grainger's purpose is to persuade people into believing that teens can make mistakes do that they can change their mind whether a teen should be punished like a adult or not.The author writes in an informal tone for like if a judge is

The juvenile justice system is always changing and developing new ideas. The first example of a change or development can be the status offense reform. The basis of this are they are trying to keep the non-delinquent kids form the juvenile justice system. Some examples of status offenses are skipping school, or running away – offenses that are not illegal for adults. These offenses can lead to possibly detention, which might do very little to rehabilitate or change the issues that juvenile has. How this can all change is to bring these troubled kids to community based services to make them learn that it is possible to change and become a better person. Some other examples of changes or developments in our juvenile justice system (that I won’t go into detail about) are the quality of aftercare and how the system is trying to reduce racial-ethnic discrepancies and making it fairer for everyone (models for change).

Regardless of age, a killer is a killer. A killer can be the daily customer you have at your job or the child you’re babysitting. “The Supreme Court justices would be wise as well as compassionate to strike a balance: Make juvenile offenders responsible for their actions but don't completely rob them of hope. And this should apply not only to the inmates who were 14 at the time of their crimes but to the remaining 2,497 who were 15 to 18 years old,” (Ellison 19). Kids make mistakes all the time, that doesn’t mean we should take their life away from them. With overlooking the listed factors in court when sentencing a juvenile, this will improve the number of children in prisons. Not all of these children partake in the act because of evil, but merely because of

In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the United States Supreme Court determined that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional to juvenile offenders. This decision is agreeable upon because adolescents do not receive the opportunity to reform themselves. As the Court suggests, life in prison violates the Eighth Amendment, which accounts for a ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, juveniles still must be held accountable for their actions and should be sentenced to a fair verdict according to their crime, whether they are an adult or not.

Figuratively, if a five-year-old had committed a crime, the jury would let it slide with a warning just because the innocence of a five-year-old brain knows no better; but, if a fifteen-year-old committed the same crime, they would be sentenced to life in prison without a chance to be let out. They are both kids, but just because the fifteen-year-old is older, we expect them to be more mature than the five-year-old and pass them through the adult system. Truth is, their brain is still growing and maturing. Therefore, juveniles who committed crimes, shouldn’t be sentenced to life in prison.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who commit murder can not be sentenced to life in prison because it takes away and violates their 8th Amendment rights, which bans unusual punishments towards criminals. Elena Kagan writes for the majority of the Supreme Court and says that teens are immature and are unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions and that they might not be surrounded by a stable home environment. People will say that a child’s life is ruined if they are sentenced to prison for life, which is true, but the life of the person that they killed is also ruined. Anyone that commits murder deserves to suffer the consequences. Others will say that the adolescent is mentally sick and needs to be cured. I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court ruling that juveniles can not be sentenced to life in prison because of their age. No matter who they are or how old, any person, adult or juvenile, who commits murder should be sentenced to prison for life.