Lundstrom’s article has the strongest ethos. She uses different trials of juvenile crime in order to strengthen her argument. For example, she mentions Lionel Tate, who beat a six year old girl to death, and states that “Tate supposedly was imitating his World Wrestling Federation heros when he pummeled his playmate, less than a third of his size.”(11) She uses examples such as Tate to indicate that these adolescents are yet to be mature. This puts it into the reader’s minds that these juveniles are indeed not yet adults, and therefore should not be tried as such. Lundstrom also uses statistics that prove that juvenile crime is down, that “the nation’s juvenile arrest for murder fell 68 percent from 1993 to 1999, hitting its lowest level since 1966, according to the Justice Department.
Many people believe that it is cruel to charge juveniles with life sentences but, many like myself believe that if they committed the crime they should actually go to prison and serve life. People say that it’s not right to do that because we may not know what their situation may be or they probably didn't know what they were doing but, they obviously had a plan they just didn't out of nowhere just go and kill that person. The supreme court ruled in 2012 that juveniles could not be sentenced to life in prison because it violated the eighth amendment. In my opinion, this isn't cruel something that would be cruel, would be giving juveniles the death penalty that is called being cruel. I agree with the four justices, that strongly disagreed, I think it’s right because why should a juvenile that was actually proven to committing be given a second chance to go out into the real world sure they could have changed but, what if they are just saying that to get out.
They are forced to waste more life doing that and then trying to find a job labeled as a FELON. We should not and shall not prosecute juveniles the same as adults because they are not the same in the brain, it will ruin a person’s life, and there is still hope for them to change their ways and become a good influence in
Crimes are happening around us whether we pay attention to them or not. Those crimes as dangerous as murder are committed by all ages but should younger criminal in their juvenile age received the same punishment as older criminals. On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles committed murder could not be sentenced to life in prison because it violates the Eighth Amendment. (On-Demand Writing Assignment Juvenile Justice) Advocates on the concurring side believes that mandatory life in prison is wrong and should be abolish. However, the dissenting side believe that keeping the there should be a life in prison punishment for juvenile who commit heinous crime regardless of their age.
Manufacturing Teen Curfews Mandatory curfews have been instituted throughout the country as a means to help teenagers. Too many teenagers get themselves involved in criminal or deadly behavior. Curfews have been proven to help those young people with decreasing their fun time and increasing their work times. There are those, teenagers in particular, who believe that curfews violate their rights to freedom. Some people also say that curfews don't help at all.
Haag (2007) writes that the death penalty is feared more than imprisonment because of its finality in that the person is excommunicated from the living. As such, it is a more effective and necessary form of punishment. Berns (1996) writes that the law must be “inspiring or commanding ‘profound respect or reverential fear’” for it to be effective in deterring criminals. However, people in favor of abolishing the death penalty can argue that despite its deterrence benefits, the life of the murderer is important. This means that the victim’s life is less important even though the offender is the one who has committed a crime.
Many gang members end up in juvenile hall for discipline if they have done minor crimes but if the crime is major they are send into juvenile hall and have a hearing the next day. The problem of gang control is a difficult one. Welsh and Siegel in their book say, many gangs flourish in inner-city areas that offer lower-class youths few conventional opportunities, and members are resistant to offer help that cannot deliver legitimate economic hope (4). For this reason, many lower income children go into following bad steps and end up going into juvenile hall and then into prison if they continue committing deviant acts. There has been an outcry from politicians to increase punishment for the “little monsters” and to save the “fallen angels,” or the victimized youth who are innocent (4).
Today we are going to be talking about the Youth Criminal Justice Act aka (YCJA) and all of its pros and cons. In social we are deciding about the YCJA and if it is fair and equitable. Pros of the YCJA are that it brings a line to the criminal justice system and it helps youth not get a criminal record. Cons of the YCJA is that it's ineffective and doesn't really stop youth from committing the crime and it makes youth think that they have a free pass or a slap on the wrist. What I think about the YCJA, that it’s a waste of money on taxpayers, government and that it is ineffective because youth still commit the same crimes over and over again.
One of Gopniks main point states that the Bill of Rights emphasizes process and procedure rather than principle. What this means is that a criminal can abuse his rights for his own protection. For example Gopnik quotes Stuntz by saying that a criminal can get off a charge simply because the officer who made the arrest didn 't have a proper warrant. This proves the basis of the Bill of Rights following the one track minded belief that process and procedure is the only way to properly operate a system. Both Stuntz and Gopnik believe that the Bill of Rights could be the cause of the unstable justice system that plagues our communities today.
Someone under terrible and extreme issues may not have the ability to handle the unfair and harsh punishments given to them. Some people believe the mental illness should only be taken into consideration when the time of sentencing presents. This shows how some states chose to abolish the insanity defense and replace it with the GBMI, which carries a penalty of crime. The GBMI allows the time of imprisonment to become varied; the defendant can prove he or she no longer classifies as mentally ill after the treatment in order to have freedom from jail (Semaje). This is especially important to promote the safety of the public, for the defendant’s rights and society.
The U.S. justice system is considered the fairest of all but if confessions are inadmissible and true criminals are released then our society will progress under great peril from continued violent acts. Law enforcement officers are mandated by Miranda to advise subjects in a custodial interrogation of their rights under the Fifth Amendment and their right to a counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The policies of police departments everywhere had to be changed due to Miranda; as this decision provided a fundamental shift in the tactics being used by investigators to interrogate suspects. No longer could officers pray on the ignorance of the law or intimidation of authority in order to compel confessions. “The courts have made it very clear that the use of physical force or physical abuse or even the threat of this type of conduct on the part of police will render a confession involuntary” (Wicklander & Zulawski, 2002, p.
Supposedly capital punishment was created to deter criminals from committing horrible acts of rape and murder, however, today judges and the jury are eager to make anyone the scapegoat for the crimes committed; even the innocent. Nowadays, the judicial system becomes more discriminatory, toward gender, income, and race, in capital crime cases because of the desire to find, what is hoped to be, justice. When someone is convicted of any crime and is in the process of being arrested it is a law that his or her Miranda Rights must be stated before the arrest takes place. One of the major rights stated is “ If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you.” Now, if the person being arrested has a higher income normally the attorney hired is very experienced and can make the most guilty person sound innocent. On the other hand, if the person being convicted has a lower income and has to receive their attorney from the court there is a high chance of losing the case.
How is a child, forced to live the rest of their days behind bars, going to use what they learned from their actions and positively affect society? Taking away the life of a juvenile is almost as bad as the juvenile committing the crime itself. Punishment should not be payback, it should be
These conclusions are not supported by the available data. Justice Stevens has also argued that the risk of error in capital cases may be greater than in other cases because the facts are often so disturbing that the interest in making sure the crime does not go unpunished may overcome residual doubt concerning the identity of the offender. The same could be said of any criminal penalty, including life without parole; there is no proof that in this regard the death penalty is distinctive. He also states: I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty" is
They believe that heinous crimes committed should be tried the same, regardless of age. Heinous crimes are unacceptable and shall always be treated with severe punishment; however, life without parol is not a reasonable punishment for juveniles. Punishing juveniles without parole or a sense of rehabilitation takes away their life. It takes away their chance to learn and change, to mature and grow. Alonza Thomas was fifteen when he was charged with armed assault and robbery.