Pros And Cons Of Juvenile Sentencing As Adults

75% of youth in correctional facilities for delinquency are not in for a serious violent felony crime (Ross). Many minors in such facilities are held because their families cannot take care of them. Drug use, often stemming from the parents, is prevalent in teens detained in juvenile detention. Additionally, teen pregnancy and sexual abuse are common among the incarcerated young adults. Most of them have some level of a psychiatric disorder, however, a small percentage of them actually receive treatment. An unhealthy home environment, drug addiction, and mental trauma all contribute to the cycle of juvenile detention. In fact, 66% of youth who have been arrested will become repeat offenders within 24 months (“21 Juvenile Repeat Offenders

Simmons (2005), the Court ruled “that those under the age of 18 could not be sentenced to the death penalty, holding that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the US Constitution when applied to juveniles (Liles & Moak, 2015, p. 78).” In Roper, the Court addressed issues of juvenile maturity, vulnerability, external influences, development, and culpability. In their holding, the Court cited inherent differences distinct to a juvenile, stating that the juvenile’s culpability must be considered in capital punishment decisions. The decision in Roper exclusively established differences between juveniles and adults for death penalty cases. At this time, juveniles could still be sentenced to life without parole.

Juveniles should not receive severe adult sentences for the murders they commit due to their underdeveloped prefrontal cortex not allowing them to fully process decisions and consequences at a young age. In fact, the prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain where decision making originates and does not fully develop until the age of 25. Furthermore, sentencing a juvenile as an adult while they are at an impulsive age and subject to peer pressure is resulting to cruel and unusual punishment as defined in the eighth amendment of the United States Bill of Rights. Eventually, imposing an adult verdict over a juvenile would inhibit a proper rehabilitation for the convicted juvenile. Hence, it is recommended that states that currently have life without parole or the death penalty laws, ratify a new law for juvenile convicts for proper sentencing and rehabilitation.

In the United States of America today when a person has been committed of a crime they are trialed through a system to conclude if they are guilty as well as determine their best fit punishment of due to the crime. From what most people know when an adult is put through this process they have the right to a quick and speedy trial with a jury to determine if they are guilty and they are given their punishment. However, within our system the process of punishment and sentencing is significantly different if the defendant of the crime is under the age of 18, if they are under 18 they are legally considered a child and are not put through the same system and punishment with which adult are. They are but through what we call a juvenile court system.

Regardless of age, a killer is a killer. A killer can be the daily customer you have at your job or the child you’re babysitting. “The Supreme Court justices would be wise as well as compassionate to strike a balance: Make juvenile offenders responsible for their actions but don't completely rob them of hope. And this should apply not only to the inmates who were 14 at the time of their crimes but to the remaining 2,497 who were 15 to 18 years old,” (Ellison 19). Kids make mistakes all the time, that doesn’t mean we should take their life away from them. With overlooking the listed factors in court when sentencing a juvenile, this will improve the number of children in prisons. Not all of these children partake in the act because of evil, but merely because of

Another argument from those opposed to putting juveniles on trial as adults is that juveniles are incapable to plan and see the consequences. In 1993 a seventeen year old Christopher Simmons and his friend robbed, bound, and gagged then pushed into a river Shirley Crook who then drowned to death in the river. Having robbed and bound the victim showed a plan that the two juveniles created because they had the materials to bind the woman and the idea to rob her of possessions before killing her. The prosecutor of the two teens, George McElroy, said “Seventeen. Isn’t that scary? Doesn’t that scare you? Mitigating? Quite the contrary, I submit. Quite the contrary.”(Liptak pg.2) Another example of a teen showing the ability to

There are many controversial issues in our world today, and each of those issues is well debated by people who either support it or absolutely loathe it. One of those highly debated controversial issues is the juvenile death penalty. Since the Roper v. Simmons case in 2005, sentencing juveniles to death is considered illegal on the grounds that it violates the Eighth Amendment rights (Babcock 6). Although it is considered illegal in the United States, it is still a highly debated problem. There are people that believe the juvenile death penalty is an effective punishment and should not be illegal. On the other hand, many believe that the juvenile death penalty is an extreme punishment and should not be an option when it comes to sentencing juveniles. With such a critical issue, it is only considered fair to understand both sides opinions about the juvenile death penalty.

One of the most controversial questions in the juvenile justice system today is, "Should the death penalty be applied to juveniles?”. A lot of people think that the death penalty for juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment and should only be used for adults. The crimes that juveniles commit are as dangerous and as violent as adult crimes. People argue that the adolescent brain does not mature until the late teens or early twenties, and that death penalty should not be the resolution. Some studies show that childhood abuse or neglect can causes the child to commit crimes when they grow to adulthood. Debate about the use of the death penalty for juveniles has grown more intense because of the crimes they are

Many of those who are in favor of prosecuting juveniles as adults believe that the juvenile justice system is too relaxed. Therefore, they believe that juvenile offenders don’t recognize the seriousness of their crime. But should the punishment

Many young adolescents who have committed horrendous crimes have been a huge topic amongst the Supreme Court. Whether young adolescents are viewed as innocent, naive children to the public, this not changed the fact they can commit brutal crimes. In spite of the fact that adolescents have committed brutal crimes such as murder, one needs to understand that their brains are not as fully developed as an adult brain would be. Adolescents should not be trialed to a life sentence or attend adult prisons; however, they should be punished for their actions and undergo rehabilitation programs to help them be prepared to fit in with the rest of society.

In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While

In my own opinion, I consider juveniles as immature because they lack the ability to recognize the long term impact of their actions as they have decreased levels of responsibility. Therefore, the justice system should not charge juveniles in adult legal system and sentence them as adults.Trying juveniles as adults exposes the young offenders to state penitentiaries up to life in prison without parole and even sentenced to death. This raises a question on how truly effective treating juveniles as adults are to the young offenders. As the crimes committed by juveniles increase, there has been an outcry from the public and affected to prosecute juveniles accused of serious crimes as adults. It is true that juveniles do

On May 31st, 2014 a twelve-year-old girl named Payton Leutner was stabbed 19 times by two of her twelve-year-old friends that were trying to please a fictional character called Slender Man. Leutner’s friends lured her into a Waukesha park, stabbed her and left her for dead. If the two twelve-year-old girls were convicted in juvenile court, they would stay in jail until they are 18 then, when released back into their communities, they would have intense supervision and services. However, if they got convicted as adults they would face up to 65 years in prison with a combination of prison and extended supervision under the Department of Corrections.

  The punishment of juvenile criminals, specifically those between the ages of 13 and 18, in the event that they commit crimes of murder, is not severe enough. Minors between these critical ages in the teenage life who commit crimes of murder should be prosecuted as adults in all situations and locations.

In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the United States Supreme Court determined that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional to juvenile offenders. This decision is agreeable upon because adolescents do not receive the opportunity to reform themselves. As the Court suggests, life in prison violates the Eighth Amendment, which accounts for a ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, juveniles still must be held accountable for their actions and should be sentenced to a fair verdict according to their crime, whether they are an adult or not.