Juveniles Should Be Tried As Adults

Whether juveniles should be tried as adults in the justice system or not, has been an ongoing debate for many people. There has been many cases throughout time where people under the age of 18 have been tried as adults in the justice system. Information about this debate can be found in articles, novels, and podcasts. Typically people who are under the age of 18 are identified as a juvenile delinquent and go through different procedures after committing a crime. There is many examples and evidence of why juveniles should not be tried as adults. A juvenile is typically considered a person who is under 18 years of age.

One of the most debatable topics in today’s justice system is whether or not juveniles should receive waivers to adult court. There are three methods that are used to transfer a juvenile to adult court. Juvenile waiver, statutory exclusion, and Concurrent Jurisdiction are the three different methods used to transfer a juvenile to adult court. Statutory exclusion is when the juvenile is transferred immediately to the adult court. Concurrent Jurisdiction is when the juvenile may be tried as an adult and a juvenile at once. Throughout all three methods juvenile waiver is the most common one that is used throughout juvenile courts and used in mostly all states. The only states that do not provide judicial waivers are Nebraska, New York, and New Mexico. When a judge transfers a juvenile to adult court, he or she is denying the protections that the juveniles receive. The judge makes the decision of whether or not the juvenile is tried as an adult. Double Jeapordy laws protect the juvenile from being tried in juvenile court and then adult court because of the fact that a juvenile would be tried twice. Most times 17 or 18 year olds are the youngest age limits that can be waived to adult court, but in some states ages low as 13 or 14 can be waived. It depends on the crime that a juvenile commits on whether or not he or she is transferred to adult court. Once the juvenile is tried as an adult, he or she will be affect in the community for a lifetime versus having his or her records

Kenzie Houk had everything going for her. She was twenty-six, engaged to the love of her life, and was eight-and-a-half months pregnant. In the late winter of 2009, her four-year-old daughter waddled in her bedroom, hoping to surprise her mommy with a good morning smile. Instead, she found her mother with a bullet through her head. Eleven-year-old Jordan Brown, the soon-to-be stepson of Kenzie Houk, was arrested and charged with homicide, pulling the trigger before he went to school. There were two counts of homicide, one for Kenzie Houk and the other for her baby. Brown was tried in juvenile court and sentenced to a residential treatment facility until the age of twenty-one. To Kenzie Houk’s family, Brown’s sentence would never live up to that her four-year-old and seven-year old daughters would have to serve. “The day Kenzie was murdered, the whole family was served with a life sentence,” said Debbie Houk, the victim’s mother. “[Her daughters] are serving life right now. They are never going to see their mom” (Chen). Serious juvenile crimes, similar to this, cannot be properly justified in the juvenile justice system. Juveniles should be tried in the adult criminal court system for serious crimes because of the lack of severity in the juvenile court system, increased youth crime and recidivism rates, and the mental maturity of juvenile offenders.

Juveniles should be tried as adults because they only serve a few years in prison, they deserve a harsher punishment, and they are committing crimes at a younger age.

In today's society, there are many crimes going on. Adults are not the only ones that commit crimes. One issue today is that juvenile offenses and whether juvenile offenders should be tried as adults in criminal court. A common phrase that is often used in this case of young juveniles committing crimes is "Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time." This phrase should be cleared to people that juveniles are not adults, and with this being said it will not make them one. "It has redefined juvenile offenses by treating most of them as delinquent acts to be adjudicated within a separate juvenile justice system that is theoretically designed to recognize the special needs and immature status of young people and emphasize rehabilitation over punishment" (Steinberg). While juveniles should be responsible for their actions, and should be held accountable for the crime, then the juvenile justice system is design to determine the consequences. Youths are still minors and are less mature. They often face a lot of negative peer pressure. Therefore, juveniles should not be tried in courts as adults.

Should juveniles be tried as adults? In my opinion I think they should because when you turn a certain age, you gain certain privileges. “You achieve certain rewards such as voting rights, the ability to purchase a house, the ability to purchase tobacco products at the local gas station, but most importantly the ability to be held responsible for your actions. When you turn 18 a whole other world opens for you, and that’s because an 18-year-old is considered an adult in nearly every state, which is a big deal for most teens. What most 18-year olds are not so happy about is the fact that they are no longer being tried for crimes in juvenile courts or treated as irresponsibly as when they were 17, 16, or 15. But even those young ages before

If we do not try juveniles in adult court for serious crimes, what is the alternative? We need to have a building just for juveniles tried as adults. If juveniles who commit serious crimes do not get tried in adult court they won't completely understand the consequences of their actions. Juveniles should be punished like adults are for serious crimes.

To Be An Adult Depending on factors of the offense, age and past criminal history, some juvenile offenders should be tried as adults – if not to be placed in jail, to receive the help that they desperately need. There’s already a system in place, but ultimately it all comes down to the judge and the jury. Of course it’d make life simpler if we were to just throw them aside and send them off to where they can no longer do us any harm, but even though it sounds like the very best idea for our own self-preservation; it doesn’t help them, in fact it only hinders. Life is far too short, and if we choose to give up on our nation’s youth because of their misdeeds at such a young age then what hope should we have for their generation and the future of this country? None, because we have set them all up for failure.

I believe that juveniles do deserve to be tried as adults and not be given the leeway of being called just a “teenager”. As a young adult i just turned 18 not too long ago and i can tell you from my own experience and the experience of my close friends that teenagers or anyone from the age of 12-18 does know right from wrong and fully acts upon their own decision and conscious. It would be very disrespectful to anger the victims on letting out the killer. I know that if my family member was murdered by a teenager and 10 years later they let them out, i would be beyond angered with their decision to even give them a second chance.

Youth is defined as the period between childhood and maturity; an adolescent who have not fully developed. An adult is a person who is fully developed and is mature. Juveniles should not be tried as an adult because they are too young. Even though, some children believe that they are grown and can make their own decisions, they still are young.

Should juvenile ever be tried as adults? Yes, they should get punished for their acts. Just because they're just kids they don't get the full punishment they should get. If there was less juvenile crimmals out in the streets, it would be a lot safer for everyone.

The judiciary system should not make exceptions that surround age, and the reasons being is that the juvenile system holds a belief that juveniles shouldn’t be tried as adults, being due to the brain's development and growth being affected, largely shapes their well-being if their tried as adults. This is an obvious problem, because if minors aren’t tried as an adult, and treated with rehabilitation, it doesn’t fix them as criminals, and allows the juveniles to be repetitive offenders, and if the juvenile system continues to reform offenders crimes, the probability of relapse is taken into place, and the situations that allowed them to not be tried as an adult , arise when they shouldn’t have arisen in the first place, if the juvenile system

as young as thirteen are sentenced as juveniles to life in prison without parole. Americans today

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

Ethos is a rhetorical device authors use to establish their credibility to speak authoritatively on a topic.  To strengthen their arguments, they also use logos, or logical arguments and scientific data, and pathos to create an emotional reaction in the audience. In the ERWC Juvenile Justice unit, four different authors, with four different levels of ethos, discuss whether or not juveniles who have been charged with murder should be tried as adults in the adult court system.  Most argue that minors should be tried in the juvenile court system, while one demands that adolescents who massacre innocent victims spend the rest of their lives in prison. After closely reading each author’s opinion, it is clear that  name“Paul Thompson”has the strongest ethos in this unresolved debate while “Jennifer Jenkins”has the weakest. (137)