When these factors do not work in the young offenders favor, that child should be held accountable for their actions. Also, the repeat offenders of the juvenile court system knows that nothing serious will be done to them as long as they are under the age 18, in most states. Justice should have no age limit or any other exceptions. This does not mean that there are not minor flaws in the laws of processing children in adult courts, but we definitely do not want to give up on bread forever because of a few slices being defective. Juvenile courts do not have proper laws to fairly prosecute violent crimes to the fullest extent.
Steinberg argues that children “12 and under” should be considered as juveniles in the judicial system (Steinberg). He believes that he potential for juvenile to change is much greater than that of an adult. Research shows that youth, twelve years old and under, do not effectively understand the way the judicial system works. Steinberg truly believes that children should be punished for their crimes; however, they should not endure the same harsh punishments of adults. Adolescence, 16 years of age and older, do not differ from adults in many area, that could prevent them from participating in a fair trial.
Whereas the 16 year old is and should know better. But I agree with the idea that juveniles should be tried as adults when they commit murder or any other odious crime. However, I disagree that all juveniles should be tried as adults due to the fact that their brains aren’t fully developed. That being that the crimes they commit are out of spontaneous
Should Minors Be Tried as Adults? In one perspective we see children as innocent and fragile members of society, who need guidance to become product citizens. We say we understand children need this guidance because they are not mature enough to understand the significance of their actions, or that they don’t understand the enormity of what of what have done or how it has hurt others. “What kind of twisted message do we send when we tell youth they are judged mature, responsible adults when they commit murder, but silly, brainless kids when they want to vote?” In “Kids and Crimes: Should juveniles who commit serious crimes be treated as adults?” Harlan Protass who wrote the article points out, “We
It is unethical for minors to be tried as adults because the government has already set the age of eighteen as the age where we are seen as adults, the adolescent brain is not fully developed, and it will ruin the adolescents future to try them as adults before the age of eighteen. First, the government has already set an age were minors are seen as adults. Their should be no relation between crimes and adulthood, if anything a crime should show immaturity and should delay the age in which a minor is seen as an adult. A fifteen year old is old enough to be sentenced to life in prison yet is to young to smoke a cigarette. Why is it that the American government does not lower the voting age?
Article Assignment #1 The article focuses in the bailing out on youthful offenders. This man named Leland Yee was not agree with the state of California to sentence youth to life in prison without parole. He was against that law and he believes that no other countries would let juveniles to prison in that manner. He came out with his arguments claiming that Scientifics has proven that adolescent are not fully developed, so his point was that because of this prove adolescent could not be charge as an adult. He also mentioned that a large majority of juveniles were sentence to life in prison without parole and that they not even killed no one but were part of a crime.
Teenagers do not have the intellectual or mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions; they lack the same capacity to be trial defendants. The reason behind juvenile court systems is to protect these immature kids instead of harming them. Parents and institutions need to work with young criminals to shape their brains onto the right path to
Many believe that because of their age, they wouldn’t fall under any harsh consequences for their illegal act. The truth is, most cases they’re right. Tons of juvenile delinquents get a slap on the wrist for crimes that are in reality, should be adjoined by time in jail. This is a problem that assists in creating a negative sense of security for the insolent youth. When the justice system is lenient, the juvenile get the message that it wouldn’t matter what they did, because the punishment would never be that
Generally, the police do not follow the protocol of the juvenile justice system unless it becomes necessary to actually process a juvenile. To saddle the police with yet another set of processes for juveniles would be less than productive as the patrol have so much more work to address. By the same token however we have community policing which does incorporate a level of juvenile justice. Law enforcement agencies implement several strategies when it comes to responding to and preventing crimes. One of the most recent of those many strategies is the community policing philosophy.
The criminal code also states that “any force used against another person without his or her consent is considered assault”. When spanking a child, their consent is not asked for, therefore meaning that spanking a child is a form of assault. Children also are not fully mature and cannot decide when correctional force crosses the line becoming assault. We need to protect our young not discriminate against them. Section 43 is not justifiable under section 1 of the Charter.