The Importance Of Heinous Crimes

Minors who have gone through this system come through multiple times due to the fact that they do not learn their lesson or receive the help they need. We must repeal the juvenile system due to its copious faults. This system does not work which is why juveniles need to shape up. Juveniles should face trial as adults when they commit serious crimes because age does not justify crime and victims often suffer from these crimes forever. Whenever people say that juveniles should be subject to lesser sentences seeing as they are children, it makes no sense.

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

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.

Kara’s strongest argument was that adopting the resolution is a violation of the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech etc. She justified her argument by providing evidence that adopting the resolution is unconstitutional because it has not made it through the US Supreme Court, thus the government has little control on media violence. This went against Corissa’s argument that if the government can have control over children watching pornography then the same control should be implemented for children watching media violence. This is an example of an argument from principle because it appeals to values such as justice or equality (Herrick). Furthermore, I believe Corissa won the debate.

Throughout our country, juveniles getting executed for something that they can’t process. People argue that the youth have the same mental capacity as an adult. But why should a 10 year old be executed if he/she does not know the consequences of their actions? Very plainly, juveniles should be excluded from the death sentence. The minor does not know their rights from wrongs at their young age.

Juveniles should be trialed as adults because they cannot commit more crime when they are in jail, hey cannot commit worse crimes, and itm is safer for the community. I think that juveniles who are under 18 should get trialed as adults. In 2012 the supreme court ruled that Juveniles under the age of 18 can not receive a life sentence or be put to death without parole (lauck). But what if some one under 18 committed a crime that a 23 year old committed why should one get life or be put to death while the other one gets a smack on the wrist and gets away scot free, the under aged person can be just as bad as someone who is over 18. I think that juveniles under the age of 18 should be trialed as adults My reason for why I think that juveniles should be trialed as adults is when the juvenile gets out in 6 years after he/she committed a first degree murder which he should have gotten life for, who to say that he won't commit another

Another example from Jennifer's Jenkins article she states how “undeveloped brain” has nothing to do with teens committing these crimes. If an “undeveloped brain” was the case then teens would kill at roughly the same rates all over the world, which is not. Some of these teens think they can get away with some of these crimes which leads to commit more. In Jennifer's article she explains one of her case with a serial killer. His parents will fix everything whenever he got in trouble.

However, their age should be taken into account when sentencing. The US Supreme Court has ruled that people who commit murder as a juvenile cannot be sentenced to death, even if their trial takes place after they turn 18. I agree with this. But the controversy now is if they get life without parole. I don 't think they should.

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 do may not think of the consequences, or may have a weaker mental barrier to block all the hate or stress. The brain is “not yet adults” so we should not treat teens as such. The sentencing of life in prison without parole is the same as just taking someone’s life and turning them into a lifeless being. Even worse is if they give them a 20 year sentence and they are back on the street without a high school diploma, college degree, or education. They are forced to waste more life doing that and then trying to find a job labeled as a FELON.

Peters goes on to say that Schultz should have known better but due to his developing brain that he did not and that it was his impulsivity that led him to point a gun at his cousin (2013). This is a further example of wording to elicit emotionality from the reader that Schultz is being unfairly tried. Peters also talks about how children are not known to have the ability to consciously be aware of the consequences their actions could bring (2013). The author making a point about children is in a way comparing the fifteen-year-old Schultz to a child mentality to further elicit support for his opinion. Therefore, given the wording and the fact that the author is not an expert in any field this piece is based on the authors opinion on what should and should not happen to

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.

An indication that disproves the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision centers on the idea that one’s age should not be used as an excuse to minimize their punishment. In her essay “On Punishment and Teen Killers”, Jennifer Jenkins supports this by arguing that a juvenile should not use their age as an excuse to get out of trouble with the law. After mentioning the horrific case of a teenager who killed a pregnant woman for satisfaction, it is revealed that the murderer was charged with three life sentences. Despite the murderer’s wicked actions, some people still believed that the murderer did not deserve life sentences just because the killer was not considered a legal adult. To support her argument that age isn’t enough of an excuse, Jenkins writes “There are advocates who wish to minimize

In the article, On Punishment and Teen Killers, Jennifer Jenkins feels no remorse toward the teen killer. But Jenkins has worked with teenager her whole life, shouldn’t she feel a little remorse towards the kids. She argues “If brain development were the reason, then teen killers would kill at roughly the same rates all over the world”. But not all teenagers go through the same situations that others do. In addition it’s a generalization to assume that minors would pursue murder due to hardship in their

Where the weapons were obtained in the sandy hook shooting and the Orlando shooting were dramatically different. Lanza took the weapons from his mother who owned them legally, but Lanza was unable to have firearms because of his mental illness. Mateen was cleared by the federal background check even though the FBI did some monitoring on him. His radical beliefs caught the eye of the federal government, but someone 's religion can not be used to stip individuals of their rights. Lastly he explains that, “cultural beliefs are significantly related to people’s opinions about gun control, but the strongest, most consistent predictors of people’s gun control preferences are their political beliefs and affiliations,” (Wozniak 2).