The Mind Of A Child

On the fateful day of July 28, 1999, six year old Tiffany Eunick was beaten to death by a 6 foot tall and 160 pound Lionel Tate. The autopsy report showed that Tate reportedly stomped on Eunick so hard her liver was lacerated, and the young girl sustained multiple bone fractures so severe that she was pronounced dead at the hospital hours later. Tate was controversially convicted of felony murder and thus sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. Now why was this sentence so controversial? Because Lionel Tate was only twelve years old at the time of the murder. How do we determine mental competence of someone whose brain is still developing? How could someone who has not even finished puberty possibly understand the sever implications of such a brutal crime? How can we possibly try a juvenile as an adult when juveniles are proven to have diminished impulse control? This paper will discuss the history of charging juveniles of adults, discuss the issues that make this practice wrong while negating opposing arguments, and explain the various consequences that come with charging juvenile offenders as adults.

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

Children have a long standing history in crimes. Some are cold blooded killers and some have real mental issues we have no idea they have. Children have been in crime since the 1900s. Currently in the united states there are thousands of children coming into jail everyday for murder, homicide, or any other particular crime. One source states that, “Currently an estimated 250,000 youth are tried, sentenced, or incarcerated as adults every year across the

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.

In the article, “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” (May 25, 2001), by Paul Thompson, the author argues that teenagers should not be legally treated as adults because their brains are not fully developed. First Thompson raises a question whether teenagers should be tried as adults after the trial of fourteen-year-old Nathaniel Brazill who is charged with second-degree murder for the shooting of his middle school teacher. Following up the numerous questions from reporters and teen advocates, Thompson informs the audience about the loss brain tissue in teenage brains and its correlation to the teenagers’ violent tendencies. After elaborating that teenagers need the correct guidance to steer their development onto the right path, he concludes

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

Considering the behaviors of an adolescent in the same manner as that of an adult is unfair. Juvenile brains are still developing, which means that they perform differently than adult brains (AACAP). Adolescents are more likely to act on impulse, get involved in fights, and engage in risky or dangerous behavior. They are less likely to think before they act or consider the consequences of their actions (AACAP). Weighing this scientific fact, it is unfair to assume that a juvenile committed a delinquent act with the same forethought of an adult. The mental development of a juvenile makes it difficult to prove that they established the mens rea equal to that of an adult guilty of the same offense.

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

Among the reasons adolescents are incapable of the same reasoning and maturity as an adult is the fact that their brains have not yet fully developed. According to the “Young Adult Development Project” at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT), the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s. As a result, minors do not possess the mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. They cannot fully comprehend the seriousness of the situation until it is already too late. Teenagers are especially susceptible to this, which can lead to regret, guilt and many obvious mistakes. Researchers at MIT point out the limitations of the teen brain in their Young Adult Development Project, “At the same time young adults are experiencing new levels of sophistication in thinking and emotional regulation, their brains are undergoing changes in precisely the areas associated with these functions.” Additionally, The University of Rochester Medical Center writes in their article “Understanding the Teen brain” that “Good judgement is not something [minors] can excel in... yet.” In 2016 a 10-year old boy shot and killed his brother while they were playing cops and robbers with a rifle he did not know was loaded.

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

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.

There are many different things that shape the cognitive development of children. To begin with cognitive development is when a child develops how to process, solve problems, and start making decisions. Once they have learned this they take everything they have learned into their adolescence. An example, of what can shape the cognitive development of a child can be an educational game. Educational games can be very useful in shaping a child’s development because they are having fun while learning at the same time and what kid doesn’t like to play games, the fact that it is even educational makes it even better for them. Not only are they having fun but there are many different games that help in different categories of development in

In a series of reflections scattered throughout The Arcades Project and elsewhere, Walter Benjamin offers a view of childhood cognition as defined by an immediacy between perception and action; the inherently tactile relation between thought and world elicited by the child invokes a direct relationship of thought and action and so a capacity to transform the world.1 Rather than accept the given meaning of things, children are said to acquire knowledge by grabbing objects, analysing them in new ways, putting them to uses beyond those to which they were intended (think of the ubiquitous admission of the child 's preference for the wrapping to the toy).2 Play thus has a redemptive quality. As an experimental and tactile engagement with the