Should Children Be Held Responsible For Their Actions?

Adult decisions should have adult consequence many minors don’t think about their actions and how it affects others around them. According to

Today?s legal system states that children between the ages two to six should not be held liable for criminal actions. There are several developmental characteristics that support this claim. These characteristics come from biological, cognitive, and psychosocial areas. For those who are religious, one can also find spiritual support in Scripture that validates young children cannot reason as older children or adults can. Until a child?s brain matures, it is likely that a child may act impulsively and could commit a crime without reasoning beforehand that he or she

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.

Moreover there is a huge debate in the UK whether to increase the age of criminal responsibility, in which I argue it should and should not. Although the age of criminal responsibility varies across Europe. In Malta, children aged 9 to 14 can be held for offences committed with “mischievous discretion”, to 12 in Netherlands and 14 in Monaco, (https://www.crin.org/en/home/ages/europe). In the past couple of years there have been on a long debate in England and Wales, where the age is 10 and whether it should be

Researchers have discussed that at the age between 12 and 15 is when a child starts to develop the understanding of their actions. Psychologically, their brain starts to advance into creating their own thought process. Dr. William Womack a Psychiatrist states that young children have not yet developed the mind set to value another human’s life. A minor who commits a crime at a young age should pay for the consequences as an adult would. Their thought process doesn’t start after they commit the crime, it starts before they commit the crime. I believe that when a minor commits a violent crime they know what they are doing.

If a person is considered sane and taught right and wrong then they should be held responsible for their actions no matter what there age. Then again as the 14th

When do children lose their innocence? It’s a question that has been pondered by many throughout the years. Especially, by criminal psychologists when it comes to whether to try a child as an adult or as a minor. Obviously, this is an argument that involves two sides. The two articles presented had very different views as to whether or not children should be tried as adults or not. The article written by J. Steven Smith “Adult prisons: no place for kids” addresses how children should not be tried as adults because of various reasons. Meanwhile, Jessica Reaves “Should the law treat kids and adults differently?” believes in that it should be the crime that matters not the criminals age. The two

“Neuroscience and developmental psychology demonstrate that juveniles are developmentally different than adults” (Henry). All children are not as able as adults to make mature decisions because they have higher social impulses and emotional impulses. Children who have killed someone should not be prosecuted as adults. The human brain doesn’t fully develop in adolescents, the law in some states says children under 14 should not be tried as adults, and children have to be at least 18 to make big decisions, such as voting.

I feel that parents should be held responsible for their minor children's criminal acts. If parents suddenly had to start paying the city for damages their kids are causing they would definitely be more willing to stop their children.

An eleven old gunman holds up a store for eight dollars. A pair of teenage girls rob and kill a cab driver. A pair of teenage boys rob a teacher using a .375 magnum. These are all cases where the minors got away with the crimes they committed. This is a good example of what happens when the justice system did not hold the minor accountable for the crime. In Florida 2001, fourteen year old Lionel Tate was charged with murder. He was “practicing wrestling moves” on his six-year old neighbor, Tiffany Eunick. People wondered whether he was actually practicing wrestling moves on her or brutally beat. The police experts say it was a brutal beating when they found 35 injuries on the poor girl. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. The difference between these two cases clearly highlights the way in which minors are held accountable for their crimes. In case A, there is no clear accountability shown to the minor which means the minor could theoretically commit the same crime again. In case B, the minor is held accountable for their actions and are less likely to repeat the crime, not that many that are treated as adults get the chance to repeat the crime.

Trying children as adults has not been a deterrent to wrong behavior. Most children are not aware of the legal nuances of sentencing. Children are most easily influenced by bad behavior and they do not know better. Based on studies, children are most likely to act on impulse rather than reasoning, as “…recent medical research has found that the brain continues to develop into one's teenage years” (Little Adult Criminals). Many kids are less likely to think before they act, or pause to consider the potential consequences of their actions.

In addition, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has reported that there are now even younger children who are tried as adults. In their report, they specify that in most states children as young as 13 or 14 years old are tried as adults for their crimes. Not to mention, in Kansas and Vermont, children as young as 10 years old are and can be tried as adults (OJJDP). This means even though they are children, they can receive a life sentence without even a chance of parole. How can these children own up to their mistakes by spending the rest of their lives locked up? How are they expected to even comprehend the consequences of their mistakes? Even worse, it was not until 2005 that the Supreme Court banned the execution of juveniles ruling that “death by execution is unconstitutional for juveniles” ("Justices Abolish Death Penalty for Juveniles"). Simply, for over two hundred years in the existence of the United States, it was constitutional to execute children. Since the birth of the United States there have been over three hundred and sixty five children executed for their crimes (“Death in Prison Sentences for Children”). It is not right that a child’s future can be taken away because of one’s own mistake at such a young age. As a nation, we need to care for the young and help them integrate into society because their future is our future.

We can drive at 16, get a job at fourteen but as soon as we pick up a gun and kill someone were ‘emotionally immature’ and ‘too impulsive to understand’. Speaking frankly, if you are old enough to purposely kill someone, you are old enough to be held fully responsible. Speaking frankly, juveniles need to be given their full sentence.

When a person commits a crime in China, the sanction is determined greatly by ones age. For instance when a person reaches fourteen years of age and commits an intentional homicide he or she has to bear criminal responsibility, different laws applies to the united states, when a fourteen years old kid intentionally kills someone he or she is tried as an adult. In China kids at the age of fourteen who commits a crime has a lighter mitigated punishment, however the kids in the United States have more severe punishments. Ethically China has done a the right thing to reduce the punishment given to kids, however, in the

Rampell dares to mention in her article, “And if you think separating the men from the boys (or the women from the girls) is difficult today, tracing the history of America’s conception of childhood just complicates things further.” (Rampell). By this, she means that there is a lot of uncertainty about what age a child really understands when he or she has done something evil. As a result, it is difficult to determine at what age of a child can an officer or legal official can take action against. “These contradictions can be discomfiting. It seems unfair to grant a young person the responsibilities of a grownup without granting that young person the rights of a grownup, too. If the court treats a 13-year-old as an adult, should the DVD rental store, too? What about the local bars?” (Rampbell). This shows that Rampell is unsure exactly what the age of liability is. She also points out that if a child is old enough to be tried as an adult, the child should also be given the rights of an adult. However, she believes that at some point, a child should be allowed to be held responsible for their actions.