However there are some disadvantages on releasing them so soon without at least a couple of days behind bars because then they’ll think they got away with what they did and they’ll begin to do it again and not learn from what their crime was. Studies have shown that letting juveniles get away with the crime isn't the best thing to do they keep committing the crime again and again. Another disadvantage is the rate of crime in the society give juveniles a second chance or should they not?! \ Although juveniles should not be in jail they should be put into an academy. Jail cells can be a bit solitary and confined, and are intended to be a punishment for adults not teenagers.
Although the actions of the students of the Sayreville hazing incident suggests that they thought and acted as adults, this incident of their high school careers should not be used to ruin their future in colleges and life. As most of the students who were involved in the hazing were minors, they could be tried in a juvenile court and have their records closed. According to the New York Times ‘s article on the matter, it stated “A conviction in adult court results in a criminal record, and generally, longer prison terms” (DOYNE). If the students were tried as adults, they could be faced with longer prison sentences and have a criminal record. But whether they are tried as adults or juveniles, teenagers convicted of sex crimes are required to register as sex offenders for at least 15 years (Michon).
Most people tend to critique adults and Juveniles differently and similar depending on the subject that is being discussed. What happens when they commit a crime should they be treated equally or should one be given a break because they are less experienced. In a case on June 25, 2012 the subject, whether a juvenile should receive a life sentence arose in the Supreme court. This Conflict leads me to believe that Juveniles should receive the life sentence they truly deserve not based on their age or their status of their mentality, but it should be based on the damage that they caused. Some people give sympathy to the juveniles who were raised in tough neighborhoods and argue that some teenagers grew up with crime around them, that they
(1998) stated “Legal samples are also likely to contain the more serious cases, limiting their generalizability” (p. 24). I believe there is no validity to this statement. As a reader, I am questioning what Rind and colleagues consider to be “serious” cases of child sexual assault and which cases are “not serious.” The statement is a matter of subjective opinion rather than fact. Individuals all perceive their assault differently; it is not up to Rind to determine what is a serious and what not a serious sexual assault of a child is. An individual, who might have experienced a “less severe” sexual assault in Rind’s opinion, might experience more mental health effects than a different individual who Rind considers to have had a “more severe” assault experience.
When someone who commits a crime is determined to be mentally inadequate to be held accountable for the crimes they have committed, there are things that we do to charge them, but in a lesser way because of their mental capacity. Which begs the question, why are we allowing children to be sentenced to life, when their brains aren’t fully developed? When a child commits a crime we look over that, and stop seeing them as children. We shouldn’t sentence children to a life in prison when their brains are not only underdeveloped, but also missing a good portion of gray matter. In the article “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains,” by Paul Thompson, he speaks about how adolescents lose brain tissue as they mature.
The academic sensibility is extremely lenient, seeing misguided kids who need understanding and help more than punishment”. ("Robot Check”). (COUNTERARGUMENT) Opponents argue that juveniles should not be tried as adults because they still have the mentality of a kid and are not mature. There have been studies done by Dr. David Fassler, a psychiatry professor of the University Of Vermont College Of Medicine about juveniles making impulsive decisions. David Fassler has stated before legislative committees on brain development, that research does not forgive juveniles actions but offers some explanation for their
Kids aren’t allowed to do certain things because you need to be an adult, so the same rules should be applied we it comes to give children jail time. That’s why I am against trying kids as adults. As a kid growing up your body is going through many emotions, so being put in an adult jail can really mess you up physically and mentally. A famous neurologist named Sarah-Jayne Blakemore states that a teens brain isn’t fully developed enough to make any type of decisions and that teens brains can’t put themselves in an adults point of view. She says that teens only care about their own point of view on things.
Better decision-making by prosecutors involves exercising prosecutorial discretion in favor of adolescent rehabilitation. Whether to transfer an adolescent often rests on the prosecutor in most states, however, the lack of specific standards guiding prosecutors in their discretion makes the transfer process susceptible to abuse, ultimately influencing the disparity. Nonetheless departing from traditional rehabilitative goals, transferring adolescents into the adult criminal justice system has proved unsuccessful with unintended consequences. As such, offering alternatives in lieu of incarceration may yield a more positive outcome for rehabilitation and towards reducing the disparity by diversion and community-based alternatives. Holding adolescent
Collier appears to have good intentions when she argues her case for changing the juvenile system; however, her argument seems to be limited to her own experiences and a handful of statistics to support her cause. Collier’s argument seems to balance on the belief that juvenile criminals will be deterred by harsher punishment, a notion that has been shown not to be true. When provided with the appropriate measures, juveniles have been shown to avoid recidivism at a rate that is significantly higher than juveniles sentenced through adult court. Collier is right when she argues for updating the juvenile justice system; however, her solution is far from correct when one considers the moral implications of sentencing, young, still developing minds
The United states have a restriction of the juvenile sentencing when they accused of crime under the judicial system, which means they were sheltered, and It is unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life in prison without parole, unless they have committed a very serious crime. I think that the juvenile sentence restriction did just about right, the restriction covered pretty reasonable age range, under 18, just before turning into a adult, and reasonable rules, “may not sentenced to life in prison without parole.”. It created to give the children one more chance, because they were still shapeable than a adult who has already developed their character, they deserve a chance because even though the laws are cruel but we have humanity, and