Juvenile Justice Elena Kagan Case Analysis

1315 Words6 Pages
The Supreme Court of the United States of America in 2012 ruled that juveniles couldn’t be tried as juveniles and be sentenced to life without the possibility of bail, no matter how harsh the nature of the crime committed. Justice Elena Kagan argues that juveniles who commit crimes typically have a rough upbringing or unfortunate circumstances which cannot be controlled by the juvenile. She argues that if they are serving a life in prison without a chance of parole, it causes damage to them psychologically due to the lack of experiences. They will miss the most important moments in life that define who they are as an individual. Elena Kagan thought to believe that juveniles and their cases should be going to court with the consideration of age, immaturity, impetuosity, and behavioral circumstances. Approximately 2,500 juveniles have been charged with life in prison without the possibility of parole as adults before the Supreme Court ruling in 2012. Erik Jensen was tried and convicted as an adult when he and his friend, Nathan Ybanez, murdered Nathan’s mother. Around fourteen years of age both Nathan and Erik were charged with the murder of Nathan’s mom. Nathan was becoming a regular at Erik’s house when they astride to notice something was wrong with his household. Nathan stated to…show more content…
His case is different because he was being taken to the juvenile court. According to Dana Littlefield, “Juvenile Court judges make decisions — with input from prosecutors, defense lawyers, and Probation Department officials — based on the circumstances of each offense, the minor’s background and other variables.” This being said what makes this ten-year-old boys case any different from the three previous cases discussed above. In this case the boy, if guilty, would be committed to a state institution until the age of 25 due to him being charged as a juvenile in
Open Document