The Ratio Of Seriousness Of Crime

Whether or not we should try juveniles as adults has always been a controversial issue. First of all, “juveniles” are children who fall under the age of 18. However, the legal age varies within certain states across the USA. Despite the age difference, some juveniles are still tried as adults. Does convicting a juvenile as an adult, turn out to be a better problem-solver, and how is this affecting the deterrence of crime?

There are times juveniles should not be convicted as adults because sometimes the “crimes” may not harsh enough to be charged as an adult. For example, if a 8 year old saw a gun in their mother's purse and thought it was a toy and grabbed it and began to shoot who would be at fault ? Plus children in adult prisons are 10 times more likely to be taken advantage of in their time. Research shows that children prosecuted in the adult criminal justice system are more likely to reoffend than those held in the juvenile justice

Today’s heated debate regarding the decision to try juveniles as adults has prompted individuals to construct opinionated and informational articles on the topic. The nation’s troubled youth are protected by groups that believe these offenders deserve rehabilitation and a chance to develop into a productive member of society. However, others believe that those committing certain heinous crimes should be tried as adults as a means to protect public safety, prevent second offenders, and “dispense justice in the form of punishment” (Aliprandini & Michael, 2016). Because these perspectives offer a reasonable and valid argument, juveniles responsible for major crimes

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

There’s an old saying, “don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time”. Our youth is doing the crimes, not realizing the true consequences of their actions; hence their immaturity. “Per a 2011 report on the National Institute of Corrections, 250,000 minors wind up in the adult criminal justice system each year.” (Hannum, 2016). But that does not mean, they should be tried as an adult for their crimes. Nor should they get off easy because they are under the age of eighteen. You can pick any day of the week, about 10,000 of our children are being put in adult prisons and jails. (Hannum, 2016). Nearly every year, the FBI arrest more than 33,000 young adults under the age of eighteen for offenses.” (Khan, 2010.). It’s time for society and our

An American pragmatist and feminist, Hull-House founder Jane Addams (1860-1935) came of age in time of increasing tensions and division between segments of the American society, a division that was reflected in debates about educational reform. In the midst of this diversity, Addams saw the profoundly interdependent nature of all social and political interaction, and she aligned her efforts to support, emphasize and increase this interdependence. Education was one of the ways she relied on to overcome class disparity, as well as to increase interaction between classes. Her theories about the interdependent nature of living in a democracy provided a backdrop for her educational theory. Education, she thought, needed to produce people who

This question has caused a number of debates between scholars, law makers, psychiatrists and laypeople. When the juvenile justice system was created over a hundred years ago, it was because the lawmakers at the time decided that children should not be tried as adults because their lack of maturity meant that they should not be held to the same standards as adults (The National Academies Press, n.d.). This meant that children under the age of 12 were unlikely to be charged with a crime as they were seen not to be accountable for their actions. However, as the number of crimes that juveniles were committing along with their severity increased, it became necessary for the courts and lawmakers to institute stricter punishments for juvenile offenders. The problem with sentencing children as adults is that they will not be rehabilitated.

Did you know, that in the United States alone, Over 200,000 children are charged and imprisoned every year as adults? Early in the 20th century, most states established juvenile courts to rehabilitate and not just punish youthful offenders. The system was designed for children to have a second chance at their lives. “A separate juvenile-justice system, which sought to rehabilitate and not just punish children, was part of a movement by progressives to create a legally defined adolescence through the passage of child-labor and compulsory education laws and the creation of parks and open spaces.”(How to reduce crime Pg 1) Although the view on juveniles committing brutal crimes is nearly inconceivable, it is not a solution to give juveniles adult consequences because the effects of the adult system on juveniles are not effective.

She is the founder of the Hull House where many different programs were offered such as English classes for immigrants. There was also a Hull House Music School made available to many young people. Jane Addams liked to think of this program of “socialized education.” () Humanizing the productive system was needed in order to help change the goals of education. Addams wanted factory working children to at least become knowledgeable of the history of the industrial world that they were unfortunately a part of.

Just as in Australia, juveniles are now being protected more than ever to help deter them from criminal activities. An understanding has occurred that juveniles need more recidivism programs and resources made available to them in order to accurately guide them into adulthood. Punishments have become less hardened on juveniles than ever before for the reason that juveniles don’t have the mental capability to understand fully right from wrong just yet. Many times a juvenile offender is just acting out for attention when they have committed a crime and with that understanding law officials can help them in a justly manner. Protecting the youth has become a prevalent issue worldwide and the need to help them be able to say no to criminal actions

Imagine sitting in a courtroom, hoping the the judge will not give a harsh sentence. Unfortunately, that’s the case for many juveniles, some as young as 13! A juvenile is subject to a more severe sentence with the limited sentencing available. It is estimated that 250,000 youth are prosecuted as adults, each year. This number should change, as juveniles are not adults, both mentally and physically. Juveniles need an environment surrounded with guiding adults, education and the resources to help them. A juvenile is not an adult, and should not be tried as one.

As more minors are committing violent crimes, the question of whether they should be tried as adults has arisen. Children as young as 13 or 14 are committing violent crimes such as murder, rape, and armed robbery. Some of these children are being tried as adults while others are being tried as juveniles and receiving milder punishments. A juvenile offender may receive a few years in a juvenile detention facility and possibly probation following his release at age eighteen. An adult committing the same violent crime will receive a much harsher penalty, often years in jail, possibly a life sentence, with little or no chance of parole. The only difference between the two offenders is the age at which they committed the crime. Juveniles over

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

Serious crimes such as murder, burglary and rape have raised questions as to whether the young offenders should face severe punitive treatment or the normal punitive measures in juvenile courts. Many would prefer the juveniles given harsh punishment in order to discourage other young people from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to these particular offenders. However, results from previous studies indicate such punitive measures were neither successful nor morally acceptable. Instead, the solutions achieved have unfairly treated the youths and compromised the society status (Kristin, page 1).

In recent decades, juvenile crime has become somewhat of a controversy due to the young age and immaturity of these criminals. Incidences of juvenile crime skyrocketed in the 1980s and 1990s, and policymakers pushed for laws that sent children as young as thirteen years old to trial, and even made them eligible for prison sentences. The general public has expressed a common desire to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime and find effective legislation to discipline these youths, but there are questions about these methods. What is more effective, incarceration or rehabilitation? Does criminal punishment intimidate more youths away from a life of crime, and would productive rehabilitation efforts influence these youths to becoming more valuable members of society?