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 …show more content…
Jenkins also expresses that if an adult were to be sentenced the same way and for the same crime as Sigg, there would be no remorse because his age. This just unfair in every manny. The number of years an individual has lived on Earth should not, under any circumstances, be used at any time to accomplish something, such as getting out of trouble with the law. In addition, in his essay “Some Juvenile Killers Deserve Adult Justice”, Peter A. Weir proves this by arguing that juveniles use their age to condone themselves. In the month of November in 2013, Austin Sigg was sentenced to life and an additional 86 years in prison for murdering 10-year-old Jessica Ridgeway. 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
In “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains,” Paul Thompson--a neuroscientist at UCLA--argues that minors should not be sentenced as adults because their brains are not the same as adults’ brains. Even though Thompson believes that minors should be held accountable for their crimes, he presents evidence from recent studies to explain the differences between the brains of minors and adults. It is not surprising that Thompson uses logical evidence to defend his position, given that he is a scientist. However, Thompson frequently uses emotional persuasion--or pathos--to convince his readers that sentencing minors as adults is both unjust and uninformed. Through his use of structure and emotionally charged language, Thompson attempts to convince readers
The article goes on to say that over 3,000 people are in prison for a crime they committed as a minor. They say it is done because they are not allowed to give minors the death penalty any longer. They say that for a minor life in prison is the equivalent to the death penalty. It is then brought about that some of these children are under the of 13. The author of the goes on to say that the courts realize that the children doing these crimes are not fully mature and understanding of their crime.
The Supreme Court’s approach to the constitutionality of an automatic life sentence for juvenile homicide offenders focused on youth charged as juveniles while failing to acknowledge the modern trend to transfer juveniles to adult court for prosecution, resulting in a failure to incorporate protections for juveniles sentenced in adult court. Part II of this comment will review the history of case law concerning sentencing of juvenile offenders. Part III will evaluate the details and holding in Booker. Part IV will evaluate the Court’s reasoning in Booker. Part V will suggest how the Court may further protect juveniles in the justice
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
It is shocking to know that before 1967 youths in the United States did not have the same rights as adults in court. Before the landmark case In Re Gault individuals underage were not promised the freedoms under the fourteenth amendment. The court system did not take juvenile delinquent cases as seriously. It was almost as if they brushed the delinquents under the rug and put them into a detention center the first chance they got. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that in the case of In Re Gault the requirements for due process were not met.
In the article “On Punishment and Teen Killers” published by the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange on Aug 2,2011 the author, Jennifer Jenkins, points out how teen killers should be tried as adults for crimes committed at an adult level. Jenkins states that “... I understand how hard it is to accept the reality that a 16 or 17 year old is capable of forming such requisite criminal intent.” If a the teen intended to kill someone then they should be locked up, but if that was not the intention then they should get the help necessary instead of being locked
For example, Nathaniel Brazill was 13 years old when he was guilty of shooting a middle school and charged with second degree murder. He says that he made a “stupid mistake” but was convicted of second degree murder not first. In the article, “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” it says that, “a child is not a man.” Meaning that a child shouldn 't be getting treated as an adult no they
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.
Annotated bibliography Childress, S. (2016, June 2). More States Consider Raising the Age for Juvenile Crime. Retrieved from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/more-states-consider-raising-the-age-for-juvenile-crime/ More states are considering to raising the age for juvenile crimes before being tried as adult because young offender's mental capacity. The idea is to cut the cost of incarcerate young offender in adult prison and ensure offenders to receive proper education and specialized care to change their behavior. Putting children in adult prison does not deter crime.
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.
Imagine being a child imprisoned for committing a crime for which you did not understand the consequences. Alone and afraid, with only hardened criminals and psychopaths as adult role models, you live in fear. Through a vicious combination of physical, sexual, emotional, and mental abuse, there is no option but to turn back to crime as an adult, and continue the cycle. This is a daily reality for thousands of American juveniles. Yet, we continue to call it the juvenile justice system.
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that it is immoral to give juveniles life sentences, even if they commit a crime as serious as murder, because it is a cruel and unusual punishment. This has been an issue in America as teenagers are often treated as adults in court due to a belief that their crimes warrant a harsh punishment. Many believe that these kids should not be given such major sentences because they are still immature and do not have the self control that adults do. I agree that juveniles do not deserve life sentences because they put less thought and planning into these crimes and they often are less malicious than adults. The article “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” explains that the teenagers lose brain tissue that is responsible for self control and impulses (Thompson 7).
During the fall of 1993, Shirley Crook’s, a loving mother and wife, life was horribly cut short in one of the most horrific ways possible, drowning. Seventeen year old, Christopher Simmons, wrapped his victim in duct tape and electrical cords and drowned her in a river with help from his accomplices John Tessmer and Christopher Benjamin. He attempted to burglarize the Crooks residence along with his accomplices, and he only murdered Mrs. Crooks because ‘the bitch seen my face’ (State v. Simmons). He “assured his friends that their status as juveniles would allow them to ‘get away with it.’... Brian Moomey, a 29-year-old convicted felon who allowed neighborhood teens to "hang out" at his home.
Juvenile Justice Should juveniles get treated as adults that’s one of the biggest controversy in our nation now days, with many juveniles committing crimes that are inconceivable according to their age. Judges have the last word on how to treat this young people. Many people argue that “the teens that are under eighteen are only kids, they won’t count them as young adults, not until they commit crimes. And the bigger the crime, the more eager this people are to call them adults” (Lundstrom 87). This is why people can’t come to a decision as how these young people should be treated like.
Can you imagine waking up behind closed walls and bars? Waking up to see your inmate who is a 45-year-old bank robber and you are a 14-year-old minor who made a big mistake. This is why minors who have committed crimes should not be treated the same as adults. Some reasons are because the consequences given to minors in adult court would impact a minor’s life in a negative way. If a minor is tried through a juvenile court, they have a greater chance of rehabilitation.