Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults

The main argument expressed in the article "Greg Ousley is Sorry for Killing His Parents. is that Enough?" is that juveniles/kids should not be sentenced to prison for long term, even if they commit severe crimes, and they have the ability to rehabilitate themselves, so they should not serve this long term sentences when they are showing improvement. An example that gives the author is the case of Greg Ousley, a teen who killed his parents at the age of 14, and that now with a age of 33 years he still serving the 60 years sentence. The author Scott Anderson interviewed Greg during a few sessions. When Anderson interviewed Greg, he saw a completely mature man with wishes to work with young people, to teach them what can go wrong by using his life as an

Juveniles should be tried as adults due to being aware of their crimes and having an intention to kill, however, brain development and maturity can play a role into the reason why teens kill. With being tried as an adult juveniles should be granted the opportunity of freedom pending on their rehabilitation status and if requirements are not met, convicts will have to complete the remainder of their sentence. People have long argued that juveniles who commit a murder should not be tried as an adult due the juvenile not being aware of their crime. Awareness, as defined by the Webster Dictionary, is “the knowledge and understanding that something is happening or exists”. Having the perception to comprehend the occurrence of an event is not a dumbfounded characteristic.

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.

Ethos is a rhetorical device authors use to establish their credibility to speak authoritatively on a topic. To strengthen their arguments, they also use logos, or logical arguments and scientific data, and pathos to create an emotional reaction in the audience. In the ERWC Juvenile Justice unit, four different authors, with four different levels of ethos, discuss whether or not juveniles who have been charged with murder should be tried as adults in the adult court system. Most argue that minors should be tried in the juvenile court system, while one demands that adolescents who massacre innocent victims spend the rest of their lives in prison. After closely reading each author’s opinion, it is clear that Lundstrom has the most ethos in

Johannes Mehserle was a BART police officer from the South Bay area. During his duty, he made a dreadful mistake killing Oscar Grant on the night of New Year in 2009. Oscar Grant was only 22 year old. He has a daughter name Tatiana Grant she was 4 years old at the time of her father’s death. Johannes thought he was using his teaser gun instead he used his gun.

His sentence is changed from manslaughter and he has now been sentenced to 18-20 years in prison for manslaughter, followed by four to five years in prison for illegal possession of a firearm. (Ryan, 2013) During a trial, the evidence is again presented to a court of law or a jury. Being sentenced to Capital Punishment is very unlikely to happen for Burke, as the state of Massachusetts has abolished Capital Punishment and only uses it in very severe cases where the suspect is tried federally (McCarthy, 2014) instead of regionally, like the Boston Bomber Case. Burke most likely got this sentence, because he pleaded guilty, possibly after enough evidence was gathered to prove his guilt and thereby “has taken responsibility for shooting the victim, resulting in his death, over what appears to have been a dispute about money” (Boston.com, 2013)

He only managed to get a 5 year probation because he convinced the judge he needed therapy. Along with murder, Jeffrey was charged with necrophilia and cannibalism. He committed necrophilia on 3 victims; Raymond Smith. Errol Lindsey and Oliver Lacey. He committed cannibalism on Ernest Miller and David Thomas.

Juveniles should be charged as adult not only because of their age but because of the crime they committed. According to all cases of teen killing there is 1,300 that has been sentenced as an adult to life. Is not right to put a child behind bars because they're brain is not fully developed so they're not mature, but a crime is a crime.

Other reform includes construction by the governor to build bigger prisons and fill the adult systems, forcing younger ones to be responsible for their crimes. Probation court on the other hand is trying to create a profile for repeat offenders. The idea will help gauge and correct behavior before it gets worse or happens again. The effort is to help the child no punish them. The last reform idea is By DA Gil Garcetti.

He gets the verdict of not guilty since there is room for reasonable doubt, and is released from jail. Steve is definitely guilty since the jury was not able to read his journal and think his thoughts. First of all, Steve questions himself about whether he is innocent or a monster. When Steve was talking to one of his inmates, “He said when he gets out, he will have the word Monster tattooed on his forehead. I feel like I already have it tattooed on mine” (61).

Many think otherwise, but in reality and fairness, anyone, especially with proven murder should certainly be tried as an adult. The quote “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime” plays a decent role in this specific case. It’s simple, if you can’t bare being confined in prison, don’t do the causing action. Additionally, the fact stated “If juvenile

As he faced justice through the court system, advocates unnecessarily argued that he was only a child and too young to serve as an adult. To show that an individual’s age should not be used as an excuse to justify their actions, Weir states “Some juveniles commit crimes so serious, so heinous, that public safety mandates — and justice demands — full accountability in our criminal justice system. There are those who argue this is unfair and unjust. They say the juvenile brain is not fully developed until well into the

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.

Miranda v. Arizona In 1966 Ernest Miranda was arrested at his home and taken to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. After a 2 hour interrogation he was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. He confessed all of this without being read his rights. The police did not read him his rights that are stated in the 5th amendment.

Say the SWAT team came breaking down your door and force handcuffs on you, what would you do? This very thing happened to Cornilius Anderson otherwise known as "Mike Anderson," performed an armed robbery and was supposed to be booked into jail when the state never came to pick him up to be sent to prison. Thirteen years had passed when he was gone out of his cell, when the state came to release him. Mike was a good man, he became a law abiding citizen. He payed his taxes, got married and coached one of his son 's football team, he also was an entrepreneur for a new job.