Also the fact that teens are so rough towards one another there brains aren’t thinking on what can happen if there physical towards people violently. Adults sometimes complain that were not adults yet, reasons why we can’t drive, buy alcohol, nor vote. In Paul Thompson’s article, “Startling Finds on Teenage Brian” published in The Sacramento Bee stated, “While research on brain-tissues loss can help us to understand teens better, it cannot be used to excuse their violent or homicidal behavior. But it can be used as evidence that teenagers are not yet adults, and the legal system shouldn’t treat them as such”. Jurors should think while there in court that treating teens as adults is something pretty much unfair, because why try teens as adults if there not even close to one.
Research has shown that the brain of a minor is significantly under developed to that of an adult. Juveniles are unable to conceptualize and rationalize the actions in which they take-criminal or not. In recent years, policymakers and critics alike have made compelling arguments as to why juvenile courts should be abolished. Such arguments include the cost of juvenile courts, how intervention and rehabilitation do not work-although statistics disagree, and how the institutional integrity has been damaged through the use of waivers. There is no question that the juvenile justice system is not perfect, but what government entity is.
The YCJA should not be amended by Bill C-10, to be tougher on youth offenders because jail doesn’t work, to incarcerate youth because it is costly, and because the YCJA’s founding principles would deteriorate if Bill C-10 were to be passed. Jail does not work and never has. The Youth Criminal Justice Act was implemented to replace the Young Offenders Act to keep youth out of jail but is now being amended to put more youth in jail. This concept is flawed because, to reiterate, jail does not work. What works is providing services for mentally ill patients, rehabilitating prisoners, and reintegrating newly released prisoners into society.
She also writes some about politicians and the Juvenile Justice system. Sternheimer points to other possible reasons for the violent acts of the youth such as, the home life. While it may be that juvenile crimes have declined and personal backgrounds effect actions, it cannot be said this proves video game violence has no effect on youth. Sternheimer begins by explaining how video games violence has become a “folk devil” (204) to explain unexplainable happenings of youth shootings and this is just the one to follow the many other explanations the media and politicians have given for problem youth. She then brings up the issue of unnerving newspaper headlines such as “Bloodlust Video Games Put Kids in the Crosshairs” (205).
Besides, we don't really mean it: When we try them in criminal court, we do not deem them adults for other purposes, such as voting and drinking. We know they're still minors — they are developmentally less mature and responsible and more impulsive, erratic and vulnerable to negative peer pressure. As people, they are still active works in progress. We just do not like the logical consequences of that reality that they are by nature less culpable than law breaking adults, even when they do very bad things. So we change the rules of the game.
He is very experienced in criminal law and is against mandatory sentencing. This journal presents information that the mandatory sentencing policy in the U.S. is a failure. It argues that Legislators thought that they could “get tough on crime,” especially drug crime. I feel this source gives educated reasons as to why drug policy needs to be changed. It also backs up my other sources with the same research results; by removing the sentencing discretion of judges, and replacing it with mandatory jail sentences, we are sending more offenders to prison instead of programs designed to rehabilitate.
The new generation of reformers went beyond rejecting the paternalistic characterization of young offenders; some advocates for tough policies seemed to view juveniles involved in crime as more culpable and dangerous than adult criminals. The rehabilitative model of juvenile justice seemingly thrived during the first half of the twentieth century, but it began to unravel during the 1960s. Youth advocates challenged the constitutionality of informal delinquency proceedings, and in 1967, the Supreme Court agreed holding in In re Gault, that youths in juvenile court have a right to an attorney and other protections that criminal defendant’s
Nevertheless, when the wholesale transfer to criminal court of various classes of juvenile offenders that are defined solely by the charged offense starts to become the rule rather than the exception, we need to stop and take stock of what we are doing. I say this because this represents a fundamental challenge to the developmental premise on which the juvenile court was founded that adolescents and adults are different in ways that warrant their differential treatment under the law. Even though juveniles have different psychological thoughts they should still be trialed as adults because they are considered delinquents and I believe if they commit the crimes they should be trialed as any other adult would be. Juveniles sometimes
Should Youthful Offenders Be Tried As Adults? Ervin Frankli March 28, 2012 SWK 501: Policy II Alabama A&M University History of Juvenile Justice System: “Many people believe juvenile courts were invented to "go easy" on young criminals. The actual reasons are more complicated. The 19th Century reformers who advocated the establishment of juvenile courts were just as interested in crime control as they were in social work. Admittedly, some reformers were motivated by a desire to save growing numbers of poor and homeless children from the streets of America’s cities.
11 February 2014 Mis/Education and Zero Tolerance Summary In his article “Mis/Education and Zero Tolerance: Disposable Youth and the Politics of Domestic Militarization,” by Henry A. Giroux states that ‘the citizenship of America is being emptied of any social and political content,’ and also recognizing that it is being slowly and steadily being corrupted. People of a community are not just a tax base. Giroux writes that ‘Substantive citizenship also recognized that, for democracy to work, individuals must feel a connection to each other.’ when people are connected they have the opportunity to explore their own ideas, share opinions, question the established system for change and help themselves and others. The author goes on to say that the ethos of neoliberalism in partnership with the open free market places this social citizenship in jeopardy. People themselves have become their own threat to this needed connection of community.