The Role Of Juvenile Offenders Are Held Responsible For Their Crimes

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

The question that is always asked is, what age do teenagers become adults? What should we use to determine the consequence of violent crimes. Juveniles should be convicted as an adult if the crimes that have been committed are violent crimes because teens know right from wrong, brain development , and use crimes as a problem solver.

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

Researchers can look at the brain of a teen to examine their behavioral decisions.Teenage brains these years are more active and dynamic which means it’s still developing.Processing in the Limbic system is a result of risky behavior.The construction of a teenage thinking brain is not cable of fully processing necessary to make responsible decisions.At this stage the brain is still developing.The brain changes depending on interactions, helpimg the teen make changes. At this time the brain will need focused and support for a healthy connection.Surrounding impacts the child faces such as challenging situations is an effective technique.Parents need to consider the teens emotional

The criminal justice system approaches young offenders through unique policies to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. They take special care when dealing with juveniles in order to stop them from repeat offending and stop any potential bad behaviour which could result in future. Juveniles have the highest tendency to rehabilitate and most adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature. There are several factors influencing juvenile crime including psychological and social pressures unique to juveniles, which may lead to an increase in juvenile’s risks of contact with the criminal justice system.

While some individuals feel that exposure to an adult sanction will have a negative effect on the health of juveniles, the major crimes committed by these minors are the same as those committed by their surrounding adult inmates. The threat of adult incarceration will also repel juveniles from committing serious crimes. According to Professor Morgan Reynolds from Texas A&M University, “Between 1980 and 1993 juvenile crime rose alarmingly, and as the states toughened their approach during the 1990s, it declined just as steeply” (2005). In addition, incarceration lowers the chances of reoffending (Schneider cited by Reynolds, 2005). Enforcing laws that discourage juveniles from executing major crimes are effective in reducing crime rates and implementing public safety. Also, those that have already committed severe crimes are less likely to reoffend after exposure to adult sanction. Like Christopher Simmons, juveniles are aware of the crimes they are committing, and may even be proud of their actions. Regardless of the motive, teens committing major offenses should be placed in adult sanctions because their actions are no different than adult offenders. The intimidation of adult detention is successful in both deterring juvenile crime, and appropriately holds minors accountable for their severe offenses.

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.

With this message directed towards juveniles, as well as the likely chance that juveniles whom are transferred to the adult criminal court system will result in some type of incarceration, this may lead to a deterrence of violent or misbehaved actions committed by juveniles in an attempt to avoid these prosecutions. These statements conducted by Urbina and White (2009), are statements to consider on the issue of a juveniles transfer to adult criminal court. Although there are strong facts to support this type of transfer for juveniles, Urbina and White (2009) also found that this might not be the best option in some cases. There have been studies that showed juveniles whom were transferred to the adult criminal court system and sent to adult jails were more likely to re-offend and with more serious crimes than did their juvenile counterparts (Urbina & White, 2009). With this study that was conducted, it adds doubt to the fact that juveniles should be transferred to the adult criminal court system. Although, at times, this may be the best option for serious and violent repeated offenders, it is not likely that this process will have a positive affect on the juvenile or the community. Urbina and White (2009) continue to lack strong argumentative evidence to show the exact times that transferring a juvenile to the adult criminal court system is the

(n.d.), 46 percent of people say juvenile offenders should not be tried and punished as adults while 54 percent of people agree with that juvenile offenders should be tried and punished as adults. The common opinion for agreement is that teens can know and understand about what they do and for disagreement is that teens are kids, and they are still in the process of developing to be adults. Especially, it is quite common voice of disagreement that juvenile justice system should punish juvenile offenders because they are criminal offenders even though they are

“The juvenile justice system was first created in the late 1800s to reform United States policies on how to handle youth offenders. Since that time, a number of reforms - aimed at both protecting the "due process of law" rights of youth, and creating an aversion toward jail among the young - have made the juvenile justice system more comparable to the adult system, which is a shift from the United States’ original intent (2008,Lawyer Shop.com).” The

If a juvenile, over fourteen has the ability and willingness to commit a violent crime they should be tried and punished as an adult. A fourteen year old knows right from wrong. He (or she) is able to tell whether they are committing a crime. If a juvenile is mature enough to commit an adult crime, they should be treated as an adult, and punished justly according to the adult law. The difference in age in two people should not determine their punishment if they have committed the same crime under the same or similar pretenses.

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.

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?

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.