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.
Just because a child commit’s the crime, doesn’t mean that the crime wasn’t committed. The victim (if there was one) still suffered. Violent crime should receive the harshest of punishments and it’s said that the children should be equivalent to that. The reason juveniles should be tried as adults is because it will not only help them understand the event of their action but also discourage the juvenile from any crimes in the future. It will automatically decrease crime rates in today’s society and hopefully make it a better place.
To some extent I agree with the idea that juveniles should be tried as an adult when they commit murder or any other heinous crime resulting in the life of another person; however, I disagree that all juveniles should be tried as adults due to the fact that their brains aren’t fully developed in the sense that the crimes they may commit are out of spontaneous action. Proposition 21 talks a lot about adolescents and whether it is right to try them as adults. In the case of many teens they commit crimes that may or may not be worth the adult punishment. In my opinion, it should only be okay to punish them as adults when they kill someone. Proposition 21 states that juveniles 14 or older charged with murder or any specified sex offenses require
What makes an adolescent into a man? Growing up I was taught that what makes you a man is being responsible, showing maturity and having good judgment. According to the United States Government, being an adult is the complete opposite. Minors who have committed crimes which show their immaturity are being tried as adults. 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.
Juvenile courts do not have proper laws to fairly prosecute violent crimes to the fullest extent. Unpunished offenders will move on to bigger and worse crimes as they get older. If they learn that it is unacceptable early in life, they have a brighter future than those who take juvenile court as a joke, knowing the limits to their punishment. In a juvenile processing, the most they will get is put on house arrest, in a detention center, or maybe a combination of the two. It is already dreadful enough that, according to Jessica Wilde, “The privacy of minors is
Lesley Cardoza O’Kelly AP English III September 19, 2012 Juveniles in Court Juveniles may also commit crimes out on the streets, but that does not mean that they should be tried as adults. Many people argue about this topic and both sides have good arguments towards their opinion. Many say it is the parents fault by how they were raised, but yet others say it is because of their maturity levels. Many people think that juveniles should be tried as adults for a couple of reasons. Some people say that if you act upon somebody’s “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness” then they should be tried as an adult no matter your age.
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
The first main point that I am going to discuss is being tried as an adult. Being tried as an adult is far different than being tried as a juvenile, especially when you are between the ages of 12 and 17. According to Laurence Steingberg, adult defendants are more mature, competent, responsible, and unlikely to change his or her way of life. People who are prosecuted in adult trials are likely to receive a life time sentence to jail or in some states, the death penalty. The second point that I am going to talk about is being tried as a juvenile.
A person can learn alot between the ages of 16 and 18, and could possibly be the difference between commiting a crime and not. Above I said that juveniles should be treated differently than adults but I think that only holds true until you start talking about 16, 17, and 18 year olds. By the time you are 16 years old you are a sophomore in high school, and although you certainly don't know everything about everything, you should know the difference between right and wrong. Despite this belief, I think car theft is much different than murder. Lets face it, kids make mistakes and I think the age for adult prosecution should hinder on the severity of the crime.
I want to bring up specific deterrence. Specific deterrence is where a young offender is punished severely, the experience will convince them not to repeat their illegal actions. In today’s society we focus more so on reforming the youthful offender. If we were to aim the focus at disciplining the offender perhaps they would learn from their crimes. Offenders in this society know or at least thinks that they will only get a smack on the wrist if they were to commit a crime.