How can they possibly be tried as adults, when they are physically incapable of thinking like one? Juveniles are not allowed to drink, drive, get married, and if they sign legal contracts, their signatures are invalid. Why? Because adolescents are physically incapable of making mature, responsible, well-processed decisions; and this isn't just because of lack of inexperience in life.
Adolescent brains are not fully developed until at least the age of 20. They lack the prefrontal cortex, the lobe of the brain that helps with reasoning and judgment. Teens also do not have a fully developed cerebellum, the area of the brain that helps control impulse. Without these two physical characteristics that separate the men from the boys, teenagers can not possibly be expected to endure the same consequence as fully matured adults.
Research shows that the rate at which juvenile violators of the law turn their lives around as opposed to older violators is remarkable. With the use of rehabilitation, psychological guidance, and some punishment is efficient to teenagers who are convicted of crimes. Sentencing a 12-year old to life in prison just seems morally unjust, especially when he has a high probability of turning his life around with some help.I do however think the severity of the crime is important.
I do believe that, in some specific cases, some children who conduct heinous and outrageously violent crimes should be sentenced more severely, but I still believe in psychological evaluation as the child gets older.Sentence juveniles as juveniles, because that is what they are. Posted by: yebanjReport Post Like ReplyChallenge14 No Juveniles should never be tried as adults The reasoning behind this has absolutely nothing to do with the crime, intelligence level, or intent. This is a subject that cannot be fairly judged on a case by case basis, and therefore needs a black and white answer.
There are far too many instances where race and location decide whether or not someone is tried as an adult. Leaving the decision open for interpretation allows juveniles in better home situations to get off with less, while those less fortunate see their entire lives taken away from them. Until I hear a logical answer to the issue of selection and consistency, there is no fair way other than to see every juvenile, or no juvenile.I just did a persuasive essay for my english and found that children as young as 11 years old are being sent to adult prisons. 96% of these kids live in an abusive home, are being abused or live in violent neighborhoods. Where is the intervention to prevent the crimes? As a country and a community we should be fighting to save these children not throw them away with people that we as a society deem monsters! We need stronger school systems, more after school programs, more counselors at schools and not cops.
When the kids are in highschool they should be taking an anger management class to deal with the emotions and cognitive changes they are going through. In my research i found a study that showed that a 15 year old male tried as adult for murder has the same mentalaity as a mentally retarded adult that our state would sa is unable to stand trial. These young offenders may no right from wrong, but they are unable to process the long term affects of their decisions. And most teens live in the now, they arent thinking of tomorrow or 5 years from now.
We need to step up and help these kids not lock them up.No, I believe they should be given a second chance to better themselves. I was a juvenile once, and yeah I messed up, but when the judge gave me a second chance to start afresh, I took it, and have been straight for almost two years now. I'm not saying that every juvenile is going to think like me, but the ones that do deserve it. If you take that away then it wouldn't be fair and unconstitutional.
Report PostNo, I do not believe that juveniles should be tried as adults. Juveniles shouldn't be tried as adults because they should not be held to the same standards of accountability as adults because sometimes they just don't know any better. My first contention is that juveniles are not capable of meaningful participation in their own defense. Even though youths may develop the capacity for understanding rights early in adolescence, it often takes additional time and life experience before their capacity influences their actual understanding. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is different than understanding long term consequences.
For many juveniles, past experience with authority provides little reason for them to imagine that an adult in a professional role would take their side against other adults in a legal process.The primary goal of the juvenile system is to rehabilitate and treat, whereas the goal of the criminal system is to give punishment proportional to the crime. Therefore, my second contention is that justice is better served by rehabilitation. Putting young offenders in adult prisons only leads to more crime, higher prison costs, and increased violence.The reasoning behind this has absolutely nothing to do with the crime, intelligence level, or intent.
This is a subject that cannot be fairly judged on a case by case basis, and therefore needs a black and white answer. There are far too many instances where race and location decide whether or not someone is tried as an adult. Leaving the decision open for interpretation allows juveniles in better home situations to get off with less, while those less fortunate see their entire lives taken away from them. Until I hear a logical answer to the issue of selection and consistency, there is no fair way other than to see every juvenile, or no juvenile.
