When people commit crimes, there should be disciplined no matter what. Juveniles need to learn that their behaviors have consequences. Why should kids be given any less of a punishment for committing the same crime? According to one author, “Taking a life is murder regardless of the age of the offender, and the penalties to be imposed must not discriminate. After all, the victim’s life will never be returned, and the family will permanently lose their loved one” (“7 Top Pros and Cons of Juveniles Being Tried As Adults”).
The same malleability that makes them vulnerable to peer pressure also makes them promising candidates for rehabilitation. ”(8) This makes the reader believe that, despite the heinous crimes the juveniles committed, they are still able to change. Gail Garinger’s claim of minors not receiving life sentences for the fact that they have the ability to change by using emotional responses in the reader makes her article the least credible.
There are certain instances of juveniles being tried as adults and sometimes ending up getting a life sentence without a chance of parole. I find that pretty harsh because there have been some cases where the juvenile meant no harm, they were either confused or brought along by gang members and they end up being charged along with the gang members for just being with them when a crime goes down. I believe that juveniles do not deserve to be given a life sentence because for one they are still maturing, they can learn from their mistakes and make amends, we still have to combat crimes like intended murder committed by a juvenile with extreme punishments especially if they are well over the age of 16. In the article published by the New York Times on March 14, 2012 “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences”, Garinger discusses that juveniles deserve a second chance since their brains are still developing.
Furthermore, if sentencing most juvenile to life sentences, it prevents them from learning their mistakes. For example, Greg Ousley during his adult years expressed his regret in killing his parents, and hopes to reconcile with his family members. Ousley comes to a realization, “ what he interpreted in his father as disinterest, even disgust, more likely stemmed from a paralyzing self-consciousness” (Par. 86). Ousley’s realization that his parent’s issues contributed to their lack of understanding to him is a comparable difference in his understanding of his parents when he was a teenager. It provides how even a juvenile who committed murder is able to mature and finding redemption by gain, thus proving that Jenkin’s belief in some teenage murders will never change.
Juveniles should be tried as adults with life without parole but only in certain cases: depending on their motive or modus operandi, their crime, and criminal background. Motivation Scandalous kids who commit crimes for unreasonable motives should most definitely have life without the possibility of parole. In some cases, they’re just doing what they think is best. Jacob Ind, a 15 year old from Colorado, was beaten and sexually molested by his step father. His mother abused him as well.
If a teenager were to commit murder, most people say that they should be sentenced to life without parole. If a teen is sentenced to life without parole, they are also sent to adult prisons. In adult prisons, teens do not “have access to any education” (Caitlin Curly), therefore, they cannot learn anything from prison. Even if some prisons have educational services, teens in adult prisons are “36 times more likely to commit suicide than those in juvenile facilities” (Caitlin Curly). Consequently, these teens won’t live with being in jail their whole lives.
In spite of them being able to commit the crime their brains are not fully developed. Juveniles should be charged as adults in murder cases. Most of the time teenagers who commit crimes such as murder get a much shorter time in jail just because of their age. It's not right that they have less time for something as big as murder. By giving them a shorter time they don't learn anything and will most likely go back and do it again.
In the article “Remember the Victims of Juvenile Offenders” Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins explains how the killer of her 26 year-old pregnant sister got away not only with that crime but others as well (Bishop-Jenkins 1). Bishop-Jenkins agrees how some teens need long term evaluation before they are able to rejoin the public, as a result should be tried as adults. If these criminals are shown there are no serious consequences for crimes then they will continue their antics. Teens should be tried as adults for felonies if they are unfit for juvenile detention centers for which they can not rehabilitate. Not only will it put criminals behind bars but will allow the victims to experience some
In the article it states, “The court said that minors who commit terrible crimes are less responsible than adults: They are less mature, more susceptible to peer pressure, and their personalities are not yet fully formed.” In this quote the author is reasoning against life without parole because they are less mature and not fully developed. Although all crimes deserve proper punishment, juveniles should not receive life without parole because they are still developing and this punishment leaves no room for a second chance
The article “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences” argues that children in prison need to be given a chance to mature and be rehabilitated (Garinger 9). Because these killers likely committed these crimes on impulse, they would often realize after the fact that they were wrong to do such an action. Therefore, when they are released, they will be more careful and think about their actions before committing. If they are given a life sentence, they will never be given this chance to fix their life. Older people who commit murders are less likely to learn from their mistakes since they put more thought into the killing than adolescents
Many have argued that teens should not be tried as adults because of having an immaturity to them and an underdeveloped brain in which influences the rational thinking of a teen. Although these arguments are very reasonable, to say that teens are not aware of their crimes, would only invalidate their statements. Juveniles are aware of their wrongdoings and they choose to commit foul play on innocent lives. These perpetrators had an intent to kill someone, they did so to feel satisfaction or to perhaps seek approval of someone. Furthermore, if teen killers are tried as adults, they should also be given the opportunity of liberation once they turn of age.
Teens in particular, should not be convicted life sentences. This is because the teen may have not known what they were doing. “Children are not adults”(Ferriss) that statement is saying that children should not be sentenced like adults. That is correct because when it comes down to the science a teen does not know right from wrong yet so they should not be sentenced for life. “The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so”(Sather and Shelat).
Juvenile Justice Should juveniles get treated as adults that’s one of the biggest controversy in our nation now days, with many juveniles committing crimes that are inconceivable according to their age. Judges have the last word on how to treat this young people. Many people argue that “the teens that are under eighteen are only kids, they won’t count them as young adults, not until they commit crimes. And the bigger the crime, the more eager this people are to call them adults” (Lundstrom 87). This is why people can’t come to a decision as how these young people should be treated like.