Sending A 12 Year-Old To Life In Jail

One of the most controversial questions in the juvenile justice system today is, "Should the death penalty be applied to juveniles?”. A lot of people think that the death penalty for juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment and should only be used for adults. The crimes that juveniles commit are as dangerous and as violent as adult crimes. People argue that the adolescent brain does not mature until the late teens or early twenties, and that death penalty should not be the resolution. Some studies show that childhood abuse or neglect can causes the child to commit crimes when they grow to adulthood. Debate about the use of the death penalty for juveniles has grown more intense because of the crimes they are

By Phillip Holloway. The first few sentences this article says: “An 11-year old boy in Tennessee is facing first-degree murder charges in the death of an 8-year-old he shot after he asked to see her puppy and she said no. The boy used his father’s 12-gauge shotgun, taking it from an unlocked closet, according to a story in the Washington Post. The local prosecutor will decide whether to charge the boy as an adult.” In my opinion, juveniles who commit a serious adult crime should be tried as an adult, IF they knew what they were doing. If they did not know what they were doing when they committed the crime, I think they should be given choices of how they are to serve their time for their

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.

Many have discussed and argued if Juveniles should be charged as adults. Then there's others that believe that they shouldn't be charged as adults. However, juveniles should be tried as adults because they committed a crime in which they must pay for which they also knew it is wrong. They should be tried should depend on what age they are and what fractions have they encountered like rape, abuse, etc. If a 5 year old were to be playing with another kid and perhaps that 5 year old kills the child they have absolutely no idea of what they have done they are far too young to understand what they are doing or have done. Most of the time you have to take care of children because they are putting items in their mouth that they don’t know what it

In the film 15 to Life: Kenneth’s Story by Nadine Pequeneza the account of Kenneth Young appealing his sentence of four life terms without the possibility of parole is detailed. Young was only 15 years-old when he was charged as an adult for armed robbery and sentenced to life behind bars. Why is it okay for the justice system to charge adolescents as adults? As a nation we can’t logically expect children to be held to the same standards as adults and do so only when criminal courts deem it fit. Charging children as adults for any crime is not only a far cry from being a deterrent but it is also fails to provide justice for all of the individuals involved.

It’s all over the news, a murder recently happening. They killed an innocent by beating them with a baseball bat and burning their trailer while they were still inside. Given the proper evidence, most states would sentence the murderer to life in prison without parole. So don’t you think if other murderers receive the same punishment this murderer should too? Would your opinion change if they were a 14 year old boy? Many found this punishment to be breaking the 8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. In the case Miller vs Alabama, 2011, young Evan Miller, along with Colby Smith murdered Cole Cannon. If two young kids could cause an adult crime, they should

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.

If a ruthless fifteen-year old killed your mother, how would you want the inhumane murderer to be punished? How would you feel if you never got to see your mother alive again while her killer served only a short sentence before being released from jail? Clearly, one would want the worst violent punishment for that murderer to experience. We have to have a system where juveniles, even young juveniles, who commit extremely sophisticated violent criminalities, are not beyond the reach of the law. Truly, children are children. They are reckless and naïve when it comes to their actions, however if one commits a crime, moreover a violent crime, must be punished impartially according to what he/she deserves regardless of the age. Children who commit violent crimes should be held accountable for their actions and tried as adults.

John smith is a 14 year old boy living with an unstable family. His mom deals drugs and his dad is a drug addict. As a result, he lives in a ghetto neighborhood and hung out with bad company. He was convinced to take part in a house robbery. He was the look out like Steve Harmon in the book Monster. When he was on the look out his friend killed two of the people who lived in the house. Therefor John was charged as an adult and convicted to life in jail. His whole life is down the drain. John is 14 and doesn't know what he is getting himself into. He will be abused and raped because he is so young and weak compared to the other cell mates. He is also at the age where he still needs his body to develop but in jail it will not develop right so then he will not be healthy. At the time he did not know what he was getting into so he thought his friend was just going to go in and go out. But that did not happen. I think that kids at Johns age should not be charged as adults because even though John did a crime he was not the one who killed the

Age should not be a factor that distinguishes punishment for the criminals. Sentencing juveniles to life in prison after committing a murder is only morally correct. I will not even refer to the sentence as “ adult sentence” because if it really came down to morals and justice for the people there would have never been a distinction between adult sentencing and juvenile sentencing. The justice system should be equitable for all people who commit a crime on US soil.

Crimes are most associated with adults. Murder is especially most associated with adults. When a teenager commits such a crime such as murder they must be tried, and they should not be treated with leniency and coddling, but with the full force of the law as an adult.

If a juvenile, over fourteen has the ability and willingness to commit a violent crime they should be tried and punished as an adult. A fourteen year old knows right from wrong. He (or she) is able to tell whether they are committing a crime. If a juvenile is mature enough to commit an adult crime, they should be treated as an adult, and punished justly according to the adult law. The difference in age in two people should not determine their punishment if they have committed the same crime under the same or similar pretenses.

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

The boy did commit the crime so he should face some punishment for his action however he should not treated as an adult because of the circumstance of his age. It can be assuming

  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.