It's also wrong. While young people must be held accountable for serious crimes, the juvenile justice system exists for precisely that purpose. Funneling more youth into the adult system does no good and much harm. Juveniles are not adults, and saying so doesn't make it so. 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.
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.
Should the Parole System be abolished? Timothy P Ostin 0458935 TESC November 2010 ENC 102-OL014 Research Paper In its current state, the U.S. parole system is flawed and truly causes more harm than good. Abolishing parole is absolutely necessary for the safety and well being of the community of law abiding citizens that inmates are released to live amongst, as well as the best opportunity for offenders to rehabilitate so that reintegration is ultimately more successful. Most people believe that the parole system is not only corrupt, but inherently unjust…making it seemingly contradictory to the foundation upon which the system was initially built, the justice system. While the decision to abolish parole is a controversial one,
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
Although many people are against that, others have felt it was right even necessary. Yes teens make mistakes and do unnecessary things, but treating them as adult’s isn’t the right thing to do. Juveniles shouldn’t be punished as adults, because they’re still maturing and still have the mind of a child. Teenagers often don’t have the mind of an adult, so why try them as one? In Adam Liptak’s article “ Locked Away Forever” published in The New York Times he tells us of the case of Joe Sullivan, who was charged with sexually
2 Juveniles Should Be Tried as Adults in Certain Circumstances Mary Onelia Estudillo Mary Onelia Estudillo has written several articles for The Guardian, the student newspaper of the University of California at San Diego. The juvenile justice system was originally created to provide individualized rehabilitation to offenders of minor crimes such as truancy, shoplifting, and vandalism. But youth today are taking advantage of this lenient and outdated system and are committing violent crimes because they believe they will get off easy. In order to provide justice to victims and their families and to prevent more and more juveniles from committing violent crimes, the United States must hold criminals accountable—regardless of their age—and impose
The youths that are being tried in the adult courts should be offered to better themselves as for they are not fully developed at the ages under eighteen. Punishing a teen by taking away their rights for life is not helping the betterment of society. Another person in prison means more local taxes for another set of clothing, more food, and occasionally, more space to be built. A psychologist could benefit from these children who caused trouble, especially if the trouble was un intentional. Juveniles have greater possibility than adults to make a change in their lives with the right help with counseling and rehabilitation.
Student Professor English 305 6 November 2009 I Say No To Hate Crime Laws Hate crimes are an irrational, ignorant and cowardly expression of desperation. A person who commits a hate crime is desperate to feel better, superior and in control. That being said, there should not be special laws and mandatory sentences for people who commit these heinous acts of violence because they do not accomplish the goals of eradicating or deterring bigotry. If we, as a society, put special laws and punishments into our legal system, we are unequivocally saying that the motive of these acts is more important than the intent or outcome of these crimes. I do not believe this is true nor do I feel that this is the position of the majority of people in
I do not corrupt the young, I do so unwillingly or you are lying. If I do so unwillingly, the law does not demand for you to bring me to court. Instead it is required for you to get a hold of me alone, discuss the matters as to how I am corrupting the youth and then instruct me as to how to prevent this from ever occurring. If I have learned from this warning, I would have done better. You have chosen to avoid me and bring me to court without any warning, “where the law requires one to bring those who are in need of punishment, not instruction.” In this clarification from the Apology Socrates is stating that he is not persuading others to become evil.
Many people do not know they have the right to say no to a search even if they are innocent. “The greater the restraint on an individual’s freedom of movement, the more a police encounter will seem like a seizure” (Robinson, 2004). Another exception to the fourth amendment is exigent circumstances and according to Denise Robinsons article Kaupp v. Texas: Breathing life into the fourth amendment she says that “in some cases, a warrant is not necessary if both probable cause and exigent circumstances are present at the time of the seizure” (2004). Exigent circumstances are important because an officer “believes that getting a warrant will create the risk of injury or death or result in the destruction of evidence” (Davenport, 2009, p. 376). A good example is when an officer is in pursuit of a moving vehicle or chasing after a suspect, if they do not seize the suspect, all the evidence that is on the suspect could