Juvenile Justice Research Paper Minority Disagrees

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.

Gail Garinger, the author of “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences,” argues that children should not be struck down for life because they commit the most vile and horrible crimes imaginable, based on the sole fact that they are still adolescents, and that they should be given the chance for parole and rehabilitation because they are not fully developed; therefore, in her article she shows exceptionally strong ethos to support her claim. Garinger first exposes her strong ethos by using the authority of the Supreme Court to exclaim why the youth shouldn’t be punished to a life sentence for homicide or manslaughter by saying, “the Supreme Court

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.

Sentencing should be fair. In the past years juveniles have been getting life sentencing, why should which change now? In the article “Rethinking juvenile justice: after years of moving in the opposite direction, many states are now making it harder to try teen offenders in the adult justice system” by Schwartz, John, we see many cases of teens who were tried as adults for committing crimes, he states, “Several factors are behind the shift, experts say: a decline in juvenile crime, concerns about the costs of adult prisons, and a growing understanding that adolescents have a greater potential for rehabilitation than adults do” (Schwartz 1). This meaning for the past years change has been made in order for teens to be able to get better. But

America is again divided by something that we need a solution for right away. Today, it is between the people who believe mandatory life in prison for juveniles should be abolished and those who believe the opposite. If a teenager committed murder and any other heinous act they indeed should be sentenced to life. We cannot let people get away with that. They took the life of another, so they should see how it feels. There are many reasons why you should believe juvenile life sentences should still be legal such as the effect it has on the victims families, the accountability these teens should have, and just how ludicrous any other counter argument can be.

Minority mentally ill juveniles are discriminated in the detention facility.In the juvenile justice system have discriminated minority juvenile compear to Caucasian juveniles. In where most of the time Caucasian juveniles are sent to a mental institution while minority juveniles that have a mentally ill problem do not have the same treatment. Minority juveniles that have a mentally ill problem are sent to a detention facility. However, “Youth of color are less likely than whites to receive mental health treatment before entering the juvenile justice system(Simone S. Hicks,2011).” In this quote, the reader should understand that juveniles that are not white are treated as second class citizens. For Example; mentally ill juvenile that is Latino

In August of 2004, Robert Acuna was sentenced to the death penalty. His crime? Shooting his two elderly neighbors, James and Joyce Carroll, "execution style" and then proceeding to steal their car (Liptak). This heinous crime only adds to the current debate: should juveniles be sentenced as adults? The answer is yes, there should be no leniency displayed towards minors who commit the same serious crimes as adults. Although young, juveniles should be capable of understanding the serious extent of the crime they commit. Sentencing juveniles as adults will prevent perpetrators of major crimes, such as mass murder, from walking free. Furthermore, judges have enough experience to know whether to try a minor as an adult or not. Juvenile sentencing as adults is not a wrong but rather a form of justice in the face of rising teen violence.

Juveniles at CCJTDC are also not given the opportunity to exercise the third central human capability. It is evident they do not have the ability to move freely from place to place, and as mentioned before, are not secure against violent assault, including but not limited to sexual assault. One can argue that the general public is not guaranteed safety, and question why deviant misbehaved children should be protected from it. Although it is true children that have violated the law should not be rewarded, it is troubling for this to occur in a government run center. America is not a nation that supports abusive government authoritative figures over its people. Even given the circumstances, human dignity must still be maintained. The promotion

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.

All juveniles should not receive life sentences for felony crimes committed one time. Every year in the US, children as young as 13 years of age are sentenced to spend the rest of their years of life in prison; sometimes, without the option of parole. Juvenile life without parole may also be known as “JLWOP.” Even though there’s a consensus saying that a child cannot be tried or held at the same standards as an adult and recognize that children are empowered to a higher level of treatment and protection, the US still allow for children to be tried and/or punished as an adult.

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

One of the most controversial issues in the rights of juveniles today is addressed in the question, "Should the death penalty be applied to juveniles"? For nearly a century the juvenile courts have existed to shield the majority of juvenile offenders from the full weight of criminal law and to protect their entitled "special rights and immunities." In the case of kent vs. United states in 1996, Justice Fortas stated some of these "special rights" which include; Protection from publicity, confinement only to twenty-one years of age, no confinement with adults, and protection against the consequences of adult conviction such as the loss of civil rights, the use of adjudication against him

At the beginning of 2010, The United States Supreme Court consistently stated that the eight amendment of the United States Constitutional restricts juvenile life without parole sentences. At first, prohibiting it for non-homicide offenses, and then proscribing it’s mandatory application for any offense. In 2016, it was clarified that it may only be imposed in the rare instance in which a juvenile’s homicide demonstrates his or her “irreparable corruption” (Mills, 2016). The problem that runs in this case is, should legislation abandon or restrict Juveniles life without parole applications. Due to some belief that life sentences to juveniles may be too harsh a punishment and represented a trend that would otherwise suggest that there may be

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.

  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.