Should Juevniles Be Tried as Adults?Essay title: Should Juevniles Be Tried as Adults?Age: A Magic Number?The age of 18 brings about freedom for young people in America. At 18, an individual legally becomes an “adult”. An individual can now buy cigarettes or a home, enter adult-only clubs, vote, and even get married. Furthermore, from their 18th birthday and beyond, individuals are no longer tried for crimes in juvenile courts. Now, they are tried in adult courts. But, does one or two years make such a difference between sixteen year olds and eighteen year olds? Is it fair for one person, just seventeen years of age, to be tried in a juvenile court, receiving a lesser sentence for murder than an individual just six months older in age who committed the same crime? I think not. Trying juveniles as adults should be consistently allowed because punishment should be based on the severity of the crime, not the perpetrator’s age.
When drawing out the outline of our country’s justice system, our founding fathers thought little about consequences of crimes committed by juveniles. Children were considered their parents’ property. So, when they committed a crime punishment was given at the discretion of their parents. The founding fathers would never have considered severe punishments for young people. They believed that children, in particular, were “vulnerable, fragile, and dependent innocents” in need of protection and understanding (Vannella). However, this belief seems difficult to attribute to juveniles who commit acts of violence.
The belief that juveniles possessed an innocence that protected them from reaping the consequences that adults must endure stayed strong throughout the next century. It was a common belief that juveniles should learn from their actions instead of paying for them. They should be reprimanded softly. Harsh punishments were thought to be unfair because juveniles were not yet mature enough to grasp the morality of their actions. Until the early 20th century, juveniles were still thought of as “little kids” undeserving of punishment. However the age-old mantra, “There’s no such thing as a bad boy,” seems difficult to apply to teenage torturers, rapists and murderers (“Juvenile Justice”).
In the beginning of the twentieth century, a great change arose concerning the crimes and the punishments of juveniles. Juveniles began to be tried in a courtroom setting for crimes in a new juvenile court system. Illinois established Americas first juvenile court in 1899. The systems had been designed as a substitute for the discipline juveniles traditionally received from their parents: it mandated informality and individualized treatment, and emphasized rehabilitating young offenders rather than punishing them (Vannella). The hearings were held in a similar fashion to adult courts. However, judges in these courts tended to be much more lenient than those in adult courts. They still followed the past principle that juveniles deserved treatment and rehabilitation rather than severe punishment. A juvenile court proceeding ideally would consist of “a fatherly judge [who] touched the heart and conscience of the erring youth by talking over his problems, [and] by paternal advice and admonition.” (Vannella). This kind if fatherly attitude is probably useful in some cases. However, when a juvenile commits severely violent acts, punishment is needed.
The juvenile court operates under the presumption that offenders are immature, in three different senses of the word: Their development is incomplete; their judgment is less than mature; and their character is still developing (Steinberg). Again, these statements are all true. But, juveniles who commit violent acts or murder are not developmentally challenged, and their judgment was mature enough to make the choices they made. Their character has already developed them into a person who is a potential hindrance to society. The only way to prevent such horrid acts from reoccurring is to punish the juvenile after the first offense – in adult courts.
Recently, the topic of whether or not juveniles should be tried in adult courts in cases of extreme violence has come to light. As a response to the increased lethality of juvenile crime, many states are implementing legislation allowing underage criminals to be tried and punished as adults. These policies result in harsher sentences and possible incarceration with adults in state prisons, sparking controversy over the ethics of punishing juveniles so severely (Chiou). Opponents to this idea claim that juveniles have different competencies than adults. Also, they believe that because of their age, they have a greater potential for change than adults. Therefore, they deserve a second chance and rehabilitation. However, juveniles who commit the same crimes as adults demonstrate the same competencies as adults. And, while it may be true that juveniles have a longer life ahead of
[block:967]
In a study of 4,071 males-to-be arrested and convicted juveniles, the authors found that juveniles at approximately the time of their arrest are approximately ten years younger than adult offenders.[/block] Â The same researchers also found that youths who commit a lesser amount of crimes as adults are less likely to face arrest when placed in solitary confinement.[/block] As a result, they argue that the longer time held in isolation is not an optimal punishment for a juvenile offense.[/block] The same researchers also found that juveniles who commit a greater amount of crimes as adults are more likely to be convicted of a violent crime. They also wrote that “a higher sentence for a juvenile with a lower education than that for a juvenile with a higher level of education, such as a college degree, is associated with a increased likelihood of youth violence.” As a result, most states will not pursue the possibility of sentencing the young for violent crimes. It is also notable that at one time some 10 years ago, many states were considering the possibility of the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment at the hands of juveniles.[/block] The main question regarding the proposed bill is, “Will the juvenile sentencing laws of these states allow juvenile juveniles a second chance or does something further to improve conditions for them while they may be removed from society at larger risk of violent crime crimes such as child pornography?”
______________________________________________________________________________[/block] [block:68] * “In 2005, the International Institute for Mental Justice (IIJ) issued a report stating that juvenile juveniles had a higher incidence of robbery, carjackings, aggravated assaults, and motor vehicle theft. The report explained that one-third of juvenile offenders reported their crimes to police. More than half of all violent crimes by juveniles are committed by people who were convicted of these crime.”
[[block:6]
: “Another way of looking at it is that there is an expectation of leniency in child protection systems [of the federal government].” The researchers cited the need for more rigorous child protection reform within the criminal justice system and said the goal “for a good society is a better system than one that has a system of imprisonment.”[/block] [[block:3]
: “This study confirms that there is an innate bias towards certain criminal behavior to children and adolescents for this reason. It appears that children with different brains do not have the same capacity to make complex decisions about crime. And yet we have never seen a negative predictive value for these outcomes to juveniles.”
______________________________________________________________________________[/block] [block:71]
The study also confirms that adolescents in states that have enacted such policies do as they were told when they were juveniles to engage in the same behavior as adults. The study indicated that, compared with adults, students were more likely than other students to engage in risky behavior. They reported that as they aged they were more likely to do things out of self-interest. Furthermore, while the adolescents were not very interested in this activity, they reported that they were willing to face the consequences for doing so, “at large risk” as the authors put it.”[/block] Another way to look at these statistics is to compare them against the actual population. It shows that a school district can have a large number of kids who are not only very disruptive and delinquent, but also may have the potential to be a “tough nut” to crack before their parents have to worry about them. The study showed that as the children grew older