The Macarthur/Casey Foundations

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.

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

Research studies have been conducted to demonstrate that adolescent brains are without full adult potential thus, adolescents should not be charged with adult sentences for crimes committed under the age of 18. Several doctors note that the under development of the brain, though it does not excuse criminal behavior, should not result in a life sentence or any other irreversible or extreme punishment (Beckman, 2004, p. 1). Beckman (2004) also states that “eight medical and mental health organizations, including the American Medical Association cite a sheaf of developmental

The act’s framers were concerned with the framework of the juvenile justice system. Believing that they could restrain juvenile delinquency through prevention rather than punishment, they increased the quality of the juvenile justice system. Policy specified that, “kids should be treated as kids” (Ravenell, 2002). However, rising crime rates throughout the late 1970s and 1980s lead to disillusionment with the system. The public became concerned that juvenile justice policy was too lenient. Practitioners scrambled to enact harsher penalties in an effort to slow the rising juvenile crime rates. The new policies restricted lenient punishment such as probation and lead to an increase in incarceration rates (Meade & Steiner, 2010).

It is common knowledge that t he degree in which a person is convicted, more often than not, depends on the severity of the crime. In the late 80’s and early 90’s, juvenile crimes were at an all time high which resulted in the a strong advocacy for stricter trials for young criminals . Many congressmen pushed for harsher trials and punishments for juvenile offenders to set the example that even though they are young, their actions have consequences. Miles Corwin, a journalist for

Consequently, teenagers are often impetuous and have a difficult time controlling their emotions. However, this does not serve as an excuse for committing crimes with great magnitude such as murder. In The Sacramento Bee, Greg Krikorian published the results of a study conducted by a University of Massachusetts professor in an article titled “Many Kids Called Unfit for Adult Trial.” According to the findings of the study, “performance in reasoning and understanding for youths ages sixteen and seventeen did not differ from those at least eighteen years of age.” (Greg Krikorian 7) Although younger teenagers may not have the same reasoning potential, based on the performed study, sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, in comparison to adults, have very similar thinking abilities. Thus, the brain development of these teenagers is almost, if not completely, finished. As a result, trying teenagers ages sixteen and up as juveniles is not fair to adult convicts, considering the fact that both groups have the same reasoning abilities. Thus, juveniles ages sixteen and up should be tried as adults. However undeveloped their brains may be, teenagers fully understand the consequences of their

The position of juveniles in the current society is very important, as well as their position in criminal procedure. The presence of an individual adolescent justice system separates of the adult criminal-justice system and general criminal procedure, as well as the sporadic modifications of the dominant approach in philosophy and preparation reflect the power of different hypothetical viewpoints in the juvenile justice system.

Children being tried as adult’s unfortunately is not a new practice in the U.S. or one that is looked down upon. In the United States there are thousands of underage children that get tried in criminal court each year. Countless of studies show that trying children as adults does not benefit neither the child nor the society. This essay will show that trying a child as an adult is unconstitutional and violates the criminal law conduct. This essay will carful define the terms regarding children in the criminal justice system, to fully understand the situation.

In today’s society there has been an increase in the crimes committed by juveniles. Most juveniles have underlining factors that have caused them to choose this type of lifestyle. Many children in the juvenile system have come from impoverish stricken neighborhoods and are festered with gang activity which has made them a product of their environment. The minds of adolescents do not allow them to see how they are affecting their lives. A study was conducted, and according to the article, “Adolescents in Adult Court: Does the Punishment Fit the Criminal?”, when children mature, they will look back at their past and possibly leave their surroundings. Think about two people committing the same crime, both with the same thought process and ability to make decisions, except one is a juvenile and the other is grown. Due to the lack of experience in decision-making or the time to evaluate the situation like the adult, the youth should be viewed as irresponsible. The fact that a child’s mind is still maturing should reassure people that they will not be the same person incarcerated a few years later.

For any crime to occur, there must be the convergence of what is known as the "actus reus" (the guilty act) and the "mens rea" (the guilty mind, also known as criminal intent). Without these two necessary pieces, a crime does not exist.” Following this thinking, 14 year olds have the capability to combine the actus reus and the mens rea, causing a crime to occur. If they can commit a serious crime, than they should be at risk of serious punishment, such as time in adult prisons instead of time in juvenile prisons, a less severe

Alternative programs for youth were developed for mild and less serious delinquents. Over the years, the program has seen a surge in electronic home monitoring, community intensive supervision programs which service serious offenders in addition to minor cases. At times, group homes may house repeated youth offenders. Regardless of the placement, 24-hour supervision is provided in a unique way.

The legislation of trying and sentencing youth criminals under adult justice system has been a hot topic of debate. Supporters of tough laws on insist the need to enforce harsh penalties to uphold justice. The practice of treating youth criminals as adults since the 1990s is a result of the steep rise in youth crimes. However, youth advocates argue that tough laws should not be applied to youth offenders anymore. The core issue of the controversy is whether, because adolescents are biologically and mentally different from adults, they should be treated differently. For minor offenses such as property crime in which nobody is

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.

A number of researchers have suggested over years that teenage brains are not yet fully developed. At the National Institute of Mental Health researchers have studied the human brain ever since the stage of birth all the way to adulthood, to prove that the brain is not complete. When it comes to this topic, Americans assume that if a teenage commits a crime than they should not be held accountable because of their age. Yet they must consider that teens are capable of understanding the situation they are in, how they are looked upon as young adults,, and how they should learn from their mistakes.

A major fault of classical criminology is that it does not account for biological and mental differences in individual’s who commit crimes. There are certain situations in which these differences should be considered when determining sentencing and punishment for an offender. Some of these situations include, child offenders, who do not have fully developed minds and therefore their decision-making skills are not equivalent to those of an adult. For example, in the murder of James Bulger, two ten-year-old boys were convicted of his murder and tried as adults. Although, the crime is