The debate on whether or not to try a child as an adult has been raging for many years. Today’s society needs to be cautious with the way they handle juvenile criminals. Our prison system is already busting at the seams with blood-thirsty criminals. Tossing a twelve year old in a prison system designed for adults is dangerous. A chance for rehabilitation should be afforded to every juvenile offender. However, not all juveniles can be rehabilitated and we owe it to the victims, and their families, to ensure that justice prevails. Juvenile offenders should not be prosecuted as adults, unless extenuating circumstances exist that prevents them from being rehabilitated. Many of those who are in favor of prosecuting juveniles as adults believe that the juvenile justice system is too relaxed. Therefore, they believe that juvenile offenders don’t recognize the seriousness of their crime. But should the punishment …show more content…
It shouldn’t be ruled out that a child who commits a violent crime may lack the mental capacity to understand what they did was wrong. Steinberg states, “A fair punishment to an adult is unfair when applied to a child who did not understand the consequences of his or her actions” (604). Moreover, the juvenile criminal may also lack the ability to understand his or her Miranda rights. These constitutional rights must be completely understood before any questioning of a crime, and before someone can stand trial. Typically, police cannot Mirandize a juvenile suspect because public law prohibits Mirandizing someone who lacks the mental ability to understand his or her rights. The juvenile justice system understands these hurdles. Therefore, the juvenile justice system evaluates each juvenile and determines his or her capacity of understanding. To try a child as an adult would take away the opportunity to determine whether or not the child had the mental capacity to understand their
Other people argue that Juveniles may not have the mental capacity to know that this is wrong. This is, in fact, wrong in most cases. A child no matter what the age should know that killing or performing other atrocious acts on others is wrong.There are some exceptions such as mental illness and adverse effects from medications. According to https://flowpsychology.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-juveniles-being-tried-as-adults/, “because teenagers have full control over their thoughts and actions. If they do not have the moral compass instilled in them by that time, then they are very likely to commit more crimes.” This implies that, should teenagers not be tried as adults, they may never learn their lesson.Even if they don’t from harsher punishments; at least they will
In the early nineteenth century, Americans sought to resolve their political disputes through compromise. When faced with the politically tender issue of slavery, America made compromises trying to please both sides. This was first demonstrated when the Union was faced with Missouri wanting to join the Union which would upset the balance between the pro and anti-slavery sides of the Union in the Senate. Skills at compromise and pacification were also presented during the Nullification Crisis, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. However by the election of 1860 attempts to compromise had ended and civil war began.
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
Juveniles should not be tried as adults because it is proven that children are incapable of making a rational, mature decision on their own. Adolescents have a shorter experience in the world, their brains are still developing, they do not have the same responsibilities or rights as adults and they are easily influenced at this age. Let 's say a child around the age of twelve is playing with two other friends at his house. His mother and father both work constantly so these children are alone. They are snooping around in his dad 's room and find a gun. Not being old enough to understand or realize it 's not a good idea they begin to play with it. One of the children pulls the trigger not considering what could happen. He accidentally shoots on of the other children and he was instantly killed. They decide to call 911 and before they arrive the child that accidentally shot the other tells his friend to tell them that it was his fault because hed get in trouble by his mom. The boy agrees and tells the police it was his fault and he is sent to adult prison for the maximum sentence. Children are both easily influenced and not as intelligent compared to an adult. These children are so immature and underdeveloped they should not and cannot make rational decisions on their own.
Are you under 18 years old? If you answered yes, then DO NOT do anything really bad because you could get in serious trouble, including jail. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of minors are put in trials where are adults are put. With these conditions, the jury or judge will give them adult consequences such as adult jails. Juveniles should not be tried as adults because they aren’t fully developed and don’t know the complete consequences of their actions.
In the light of extreme juvenile cases, the juvenile system has conceded age exceptions, by allowing juveniles that commit heinous crimes to be divided into a system where they aren’t tried as an adult based on the fact that they’re only kids. If the belief that they are only kids, shouldn’t they learn that when their kids, the actions they commit have consequences. Although it’s understandable if the juvenile system argues, that for many kids, their parents play a huge part on their developments, but in the case that there is parental neglect, and they don’t know the consequences of their actions, then they shouldn’t be tried as an adult, largely based on the fact that they don’t have parents to teach them values, and the result is that their brains are incapable of knowing the capacities of their actions. If this is the result, then the reasons to not tried them as an adult, is correct, but the reasons to
The question of whether or not juveniles have the knowledge or maturity to waive or exercise their rights comes to be very controversial in situations of juvenile interrogations. There is a discrepancy between whether juveniles should be responsible enough to exercise their rights or if they are immature, vulnerable, and all together incapable of understanding the rights they are granted. Many people believe that juveniles should have a parent present during interrogations to guide them through their rights while others believe that juveniles who commit crimes should be held equally as responsible for their actions as adults.
Every juvenile who commits a severe crime should be tried as an adult. Juveniles should understand the differences in between both good and bad. Most kids that are 15 and older are the ones committing the worse crimes, by that age they should understand the differences in between both good and bad. Every person in the world should be able to think before they do, being able to think before you do will help you understand what you're doing and help you understand the difference in between both the good and the bad. The parents of the juveniles should also understand that some crimes are severe and have severe punishments. Juveniles need to know that
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?
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.
Juvenile crime is a term around the world that is difficult to pinpoint and although there are several definitions many fail to be concrete. There are many factors that play into sentencing juveniles or minors upon a crime committed. How old are they? Can they mentally form criminal intent? Are they old enough to no longer be treated as children? Some people would argue that a criminal is just that, regardless of age. Research on the other hand shows that juveniles have underdeveloped brains who at times have difficulty rationalizing decisions and weighing out consequences. It is important that these issues are addressed because of the implications this has on not only the juveniles but the community around them. These
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
As a contrast, there are many differences between the adult and juvenile justice system. These differences consist of the right to a jury, the right to post bail, leniency of evidence, different court proceedings, the right to a public trial, and rehabilitation efforts. As for the purpose of this paper, we will dissect the differences of the two systems. Many appeals have been filed under the notion that a right to a jury should be upheld for juvenile offenders. The courts have voted against this action time and time again. These appeals are made on the assumption that, as noted earlier, adult crimes should be tried as adult crimes. However, the court rules on this matter while keeping the rehabilitation efforts of the juvenile courts in mind, as opposed to the more punitive measures. Their desire to see kids treated as kids are defined with their upholding of the law, and pushing rehabilitation to its max. But should rehabilitation be the prime focus when the act is of adult capacity; even in a child’s body? I do not think so. What are the percentages of rehabilitation success with adults for committed capital offenses? How are they going to differ when a child partakes in them? I think there is a
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.
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.