When Kids Get Life Analysis

The cases of Lionel Tate, and brothers Derek and Alex King bring into focus the problems that society has in addressing how to handle criminal cases involving deadly violence by under-age juveniles. Lionel Tate, a 12 year old in Florida was convicted of killing a 6-year-old playmate while Alex and Derek King, 12 and 13 years old respectively, were convicted of killing their father. Interestingly, Lionel Tate, who happens to be black, was sentenced to life in prison while the King boys, who are white, both received minimal terms.

In this summary response we are summarizing the article “On Punishment and Teen Killers”. In this article Jennifer Jenkins talks about her sister’s experience and how it was caused by a teenager. And what she is basically trying to make a claim on how teens do deserve to go to life sentences. But yet she does not have any experience since she is just a teacher.

In the article “On Punishment and Teen Killers” the author states “My youngest sister was the joy of our close family. When a teenager murdered her and her husband in 1990 in suburban Chicago, she was pregnant with their first child. She begged for the life of her unborn child as he shot her. He reported to a friend, who testified at his trial, about his “thrill kill” that he just wanted to “see what it would feel like to shoot someone.” This teen was charged as adult by the JLWOP ( Juvenile Life without Parole) his problem was he was believed to be a serial killer in the making. In the article Jenkins states “ After a series of other crimes, he planned the murders for months, carefully and privately. He did not act on impulse of peer pressure…” This quote means the teenager had other intentions of killing more people his problem was he just wanted to understand how it felt to kill someone and the consequence after the crimes were done. Maybe he believed since he was underage he would not get charged as an adult.

In the article “On Punishment and Teen Killers” by Jennifer Jenkins asserts that teens are becoming more violent and starting commit more crimes because of the national television they watch.Jenkins tells the reader about “JLWOP” (Juvenile Life Without Parole) and how kids are being sentenced to life in prison without parole.Some people are trying to advocate to minimize the offender culpability because of their age.While kids are getting sentenced to life without parole, this disproves juvenile advocates reliance on the undeveloped brain.Some juvenile offenders truly understand what the victim family go through and how long it takes them to recover.There were millions of dollars spent to end JLWOP and to set convicted murderers free.

On December 17, 1992, 15 year-old Jacob Ind went to school after having murdered his mother and stepfather in the early hours of that morning. In an interview with Frontline he recalled, “I remember I was sitting in the police station and this is how out of touch of reality I was. I had a small amount of marijuana, like an eighth of an ounce, in my bedroom. And I 'm telling my brother, 'You got to get the marijuana or else I 'm in trouble” (Profile Jacob Ind). His attorneys contended that he was acting in self-defense, claiming that the murders were the climax of years of insult by his parents. On June 17, 1994, he was convicted and handed a mandatory sentence of lifetime without parole. This is just one of many life experiences of juveniles sentenced to life without parole in the U.S. There have been many other instances where the juvenile was not the real murderer, but was however given the lifetime without parole sentence. In those instances the defendant would have been convicted of felony murder, in which the defendant could have just been an active participant in a crime during which a murder was committed and consequently, spend life in jail without parole. Felony murder came into play in the case of Devon and Jovon Knox, in July 2007, the 17-year-old twins set out to steal a car together (Sentencing Juveniles). During the car jack, one of the brothers shot and killed the car’s owner. The panel could not decide which brother pulled

The decision whether the life sentence without parole is cruel and/or unusual punishment, is a world wide problem. On this article, Brown brings up cases about teenagers who have committee murder by accident or on purpose and how they should be punished. The reason why I want to use this article is for the disagreement I feel on this argument, how the brain hasn't develop and why the teens should take responsibility for its actions.

Gail Garinger in the article, Juveniles don’t deserve Life Sentences,claims that juveniles should not get a life sentence. Garinger supports her claims by first lists teens and young adults that have done terrible crimes. She then describes homicide as the worst crime,but explains how the Supreme Court won't give juveniles a life sentence for it. Lastly, the author explains how criminologists promoted a superpredator but how it never came to be. Garinger’s purpose is to inform people how kids don't deserve life sentences in order to inform people that they still have so much to live for. The author writes in a formal tone for the readers. This work is significant because it informed me on all the lives that have gotten life sentences.

America is again divided by something that we need a solution for right away. Today, it is between the people who believe mandatory life in prison for juveniles should be abolished and those who believe the opposite. If a teenager committed murder and any other heinous act they indeed should be sentenced to life. We cannot let people get away with that. They took the life of another, so they should see how it feels. There are many reasons why you should believe juvenile life sentences should still be legal such as the effect it has on the victims families, the accountability these teens should have, and just how ludicrous any other counter argument can be.

Garinger was a former juvenile court judge, so Garinger is a very credible source when it comes to the topic of juvenile criminals. To support Garinger’s credible usage of ethos, he demonstrates that in 2005, Supreme Court acknowledged that even though juveniles have committed terrible crimes such as homicide “juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders” (6). This technique of providing the opinions of Supreme Court helps build Garinger’s credibility, and even more so that he is was a former juvenile court judges, so he most likely has a personal relationships with the Supreme Court. Readers feel sympathy to any juvenile who have been charged as adults and been sentenced to life without parole.

Gail Garinger, the author of “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences,” argues that children should not be struck down for life because they commit the most vile and horrible crimes imaginable, based on the sole fact that they are still adolescents, and that they should be given the chance for parole and rehabilitation because they are not fully developed; therefore, in her article she shows exceptionally strong ethos to support her claim. Garinger first exposes her strong ethos by using the authority of the Supreme Court to exclaim why the youth shouldn’t be punished to a life sentence for homicide or manslaughter by saying, “the Supreme Court

Since this video, it has been more common to see cases like the Jacob Ind story of murdering his mother and step father. I believe that the verdict at the time was the right one, as these cases were not as common. "A life for a life" is a phrase heard in the past, Jacob, with the help of his friend, murdered his family and openly accepted that he did, therefore he got the penalty of life in prison without parole. Through research, it has shown that the adolescent brain is not fully developed until the age of 21 as well the male mind is slower at processing thoughts and actions than females. Perhaps this is why most cases like these are within the male society. As young girl are matured far more than young men. In the video, the lady the befriended

In August of 2004, Robert Acuna was sentenced to the death penalty. His crime? Shooting his two elderly neighbors, James and Joyce Carroll, "execution style" and then proceeding to steal their car (Liptak). This heinous crime only adds to the current debate: should juveniles be sentenced as adults? The answer is yes, there should be no leniency displayed towards minors who commit the same serious crimes as adults. Although young, juveniles should be capable of understanding the serious extent of the crime they commit. Sentencing juveniles as adults will prevent perpetrators of major crimes, such as mass murder, from walking free. Furthermore, judges have enough experience to know whether to try a minor as an adult or not. Juvenile sentencing as adults is not a wrong but rather a form of justice in the face of rising teen violence.

Only May 30 1969, sixteen-year-old David Milgaard was falsely convicted for the murder of Gail Miller. He was sentenced a life imprisonment for someone else’s crime. His friends turning on him due to drugs, police failing to look into statements and lies for money all lead to Milgaard being sentenced to a life imprisonment.

Capital punishment for juveniles is one of the most controversial topics to ever be explored in society and in the criminal justice system. The death penalty is a rare occurrence amongst juveniles since it is so arguable as to whether they should be tried as adults. Lynn Cothern from the Juvenile Justice Resource Center suggests that “the primary purpose of the juvenile justice system is to hold juvenile offenders accountable for delinquent acts while providing treatment, rehabilitative services, and programs designed to prevent future involvement in law-violating behavior” (Cothern). The juvenile death penalty has been argued over for centuries and has stirred enough people to still be around today. While juveniles have been known to commit heinous crimes, sentencing a juvenile to death is an inhumane and cruel fate to serve someone who is incapable of making rational lifelong decisions, and should not be allowed in the juvenile justice system.

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