The Legal System : Young Children Of Criminal Acts

When it comes to kids, we tend to baby them. We organize their lives and set limits on everything. If they want to do something outside those limits we tell them they are not old enough or they have not experienced enough of the world yet. After all, what can they possibly know about love, major decisions, and what is best for them? Yet somehow, despite all this, when they commit a crime we turn into hypocrites. Magically, they are geniuses who know everything about the world. In society’s eyes, they are no longer a child, but a monster.

Topic: "Juveniles do not belong in the Adult Justice System. Authorities who waive Juveniles into the Adult Justice System are making a devastating impact on their futures"

It is understood that at an early age, it is impossible to some advocates, for children to have the mental ability like that of a normal adult, to plan and execute a crime and moreover to understand the consequences of it. Therefore it is controversial where or not to try them as adults. During the adolescent years, it is asserted that a child becomes mature and begins to understand important concepts like society and expectations they are still trying to deal with society, their own inner battles of peer pressure, lack of direction, impulsiveness and lack of identity, according to the Legal and Justice Center. At

possesses the competency to recognize that the act of stealing is visibly unlawful, whereas a juvenile might not understanding why taking someone’s possessions is morally unjust. In addition, children do not fully understand the complete consequences that will transpire from their actions. In the essay “Little Adult Criminals,” Nathaniel Brazill, a 14-year-old, was convicted of second-degree murder. When Brazill was sentenced to twenty-five years of life in prison, his reaction was,” Not too bad,” proving the boy did not fully grasp the implications of his proceeding (New York Times 599). Without a doubt, a naïve child is clearly not as mature as an adult, which is why the contrasting ideals of moral judgment and the barrier between youth and adults needs to be taken into account in the order of criminal justice.

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.

Many would say children who commit harsh crimes deserve to be punished, and the punishment should fit the crime. On one hand, support groups for juveniles argue it is unconditional for a children to spend the rest of their live in jail because their mind are not fully matured and they do not have a clear understanding of the crime committed and punishment that follows. On the other hand, these children killed and most hide from their crimes as it was never committed. Many of these children that were sentences to life in jail face a hearing rather than a trail, psychological casework is done to determine the state of mind of the child at the time of the crime, before and after. The child’s life is in

This paper reflects on the question of if a child of 10 years or less can act morally wrong or commit morally virtuous acts. Children in today's society are nearly forced to be older than their actual age and thus must increase in maturity and morally comparatively to children of as little as three decades ago. The argument of agreement will be proved by examples of needing a two person income family with a comparative of a child in a single parent versus both parent environment. Although it is a "grievous moral wrong to harm" (Waller, 2008, p. 32) children under the age of ten, the evil in society today will be proved with examples to show children who are harmed are able to commit not only morally virtuous acts but can and

The United States sentences more juveniles to death than any other nation in the world (Justice, 2009) and our juveniles are being sentenced as young as ten years of age. These are juveniles being tried as adults, and something has to change and change fast. The younger generation is supposed to be our future leaders. How will our juveniles or the citizens of this country prevail if this continues we won’t be able to because most of our future leaders will be prisoner. (B, 2005)

Today, we live in a society faced with many problems, including crime and the fear that it creates. In the modern era, juveniles have become a part of society to be feared, not rehabilitated. The basis of the early juvenile justice system was to rehabilitate and create safe havens for wayward youth. This is not the current philosophy, although the U.S. is one of the few remaining countries to execute juveniles. Presently, our nation is under a presidential administration that strongly advocates the death penalty, including the execution of juveniles. The media and supporters of capital punishment warn of the "superpredator," the juvenile with no fear, remorse, or conscience. Opponents of this view

When thinking of reforming the juvenile justice system one has to think; what can we do to make this better for everyone involve? There are some programs that can be implemented when trying to make a change in the juvenile system. The main thing is getting parents or the guardian more involved in the child’s whereabouts. Secondly the community where the youth will have a place to go and have something more constructive to do to keep them out of trouble. Law enforcement can get involved in giving ride along and having visits to the local jails or prisons from the youth to talk to some of the inmates. Crime in life isn’t racist at all it has a no age limit, no certain gender and no social status for most of those whom decide to partake in a criminal activity. From the beginning juveniles have been an issue with law enforcement, the question has always arisen of whom will take control without cruel and unusual punishment and assist with the rehabilitation and prevention future crime actions.

The court decision was influenced by Graham and Roper cases that established for sentencing reasons children are different from adults under the constitution. Children lack maturity and have no developed sense of responsibility. This leads them to be impulsive and reckless. In Roper it was held children are exposed to outside pressure and negative influences from friends. Therefore, they have less control of their environment because the child’s nature is not2 well informed. Graham and Roper emphasized distinguishing traits of children weakening justification for inflicting harsh sentences to juveniles even when they commit outrageous crimes.

Juveniles committing crimes is not a new issued being introduced to society; actually, it has been an issue for centuries. However, the big question is, should juveniles be tried in adult courts? Before answering, take into consideration every possible scenario that could have led them to commit the crime. For instance, were they the leader in the act? Did they participate in the crime? Was the juvenile even aware of what was taking place? Were they peer pressured? Did they have any other choice at the time? There are so many other questions we could consider when making a decision here.

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.

“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children “is a famous quote by Nelson Mandela. All progressive democracies of the world have started to recognize the rightful place for children in their societal fabric in its venture to diversification and development by empowering and mainstreaming children. Child-centric human rights jurisprudence has become pivotal in the law’s role in social engineering. This project”Juvenile Justice- A critical analysis on its societal and legal impact “shall focus on the effects of the existing legal system for the protection and prosecution of children. However, the word juvenile has been used together and interchangeably with the term ‘delinquency’ – which describes children who are in conflict with law, conjuring an image of violence. This paper will deal with the history and evolution of the juvenile legal system in India, the relevant statutes in place, contemporary cases of relevance, criticisms on the existing provisions of the act and the amendments to be brought about and in detail discus about the challenges and issues that are ahead. It shall highlight the widespread discrimination and deprivation that is being faced by innumerable children in India today despite the large number of Constitutional guarantees and a plethora of child-centric legislations and civil rights.

Unlike adults, children cannot be punished even for committing serious crimes such as murder because the legal system indicates that young children cannot be held responsible for such crimes. There are biological, cognitive, and emotional or social development factors behind this policy. The biological argument for this policy holds that a child below six years would be excused from responsibility for their actions because their part of the brain that helps in strategizing, planning, and organization is not fully developed(Berger, 2014) . This argument further holds that it will be unfair to expect a child to have decision making and organizational skills levels as that of adults whose brains have been fully built. Since a child 's brain is not finished being built, they cannot be totally rational; instead, they rely on the brain 's emotional parts. In this scenario under consideration, it is clear that the child who killed the other seemed to have strongly responded with a gut response and as such he had not evaluated the consequences of whatever he was doing. Neuropsychologists have found out that the frontal lobe is involved in many of criminal culpability aspects, and therefore since a child 's frontal lobe is not fully developed, he or she cannot be criminally culpable (Berger, 2014).