Counter Arguments For Juveniles Being Tried As Adults Grow
Teens Should Absolutely Be Tried as Adults When They Commit Adult Crimes. Murderers, rapists, and other criminals are being released from jail everyday after serving only very short and lenient sentences. Who are these criminals and what makes them so special? The criminals are juveniles who commit adult crimes.
"Argument Essay On Juvenile Justice. 2011 Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults. be tried as an adult? These are the arguments that face.
They are being tried every day in juvenile courts, they are receiving shortened sentences, and they are being released and given new identities to continue to live their lives in peaceful and happy bliss, all while their victims and their families are left to suffer forever. Because the courts and juvenile rights advocates believe that second chances should be given to youths who commit crimes, criminals are walking the streets, living as our neighbors, and in many instances committing additional crimes. When it comes to trying teens in court as adults. Some say stop trying them as adults and try them as juveniles, others say they must be tried as adults when they commit adult crimes. I believe that teens should be held accountable for their actions and tried as adults. If I knew somebody who hurt or killed someone I loved, I would want him or her to experience the worst possible punishment for his or her actions. Some people say that children learn bad behavior from their parents, things like murder, rap or drug abuse; but I believe that children should learn from their parent’s mistakes.
I agree with Jessica Wilde when she say’s “Morals are inherent from birth”(Wilde. To me this is saying that kids, and even adults, should know the difference between right and wrong. Finally, put yourself in the mother’s position, if your son or daughter just died, how would you want their killer to be punished? How would you feel if you never got to see your child alive again while their killer served only a short sentence before being released from jail?
![Counter Arguments For Juveniles Being Tried As Adults We Learn Counter Arguments For Juveniles Being Tried As Adults We Learn](http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/file.php?path=/images/CQ_Researcher/r20010427-moreincourts.gif)
Until recently he was the presiding judge of the Juvenile Court of Santa Clara County, a division of the California Superior Court and presided over Shawn's case. Nathaniel Brazill looks back at his mother after being found guilty. age charged with murder to be tried as adults. the arguments posited by both sides. · Adult Punishments for Juveniles. of the two systems is a recognition of the differences between juveniles and adults and offers juveniles. Should juveniles be tried as adults. because they are indeed juveniles, not adults. Suspiciously absent from this argument is a counter-figure which.
Now then, some people believe that we should stop putting teens in adult prison; they believe we should be lenient with them and give them easier sentences. These people argue that children are capable of learning from their mistakes and because they are children, they can be rehabilitated. Others say that teens are too young to understand the consequences of there actions, or that they don’t know their limitations with drugs or alcohol. I believe this is a ridiculous argument because teens shouldn’t be drinking or doing drugs in the first place. There are some people, like Hendricks, in his article “Stop Trying 1. Year- olds in Court as Adults”, who believe “They’re abused and come out more dangerous and damaged then when they went in”(Hendricks 2). This is a good argument; however, can’t we say the same thing for adults?
Counter Arguments For Juveniles Being Tried As Adults Letting
Why should juveniles be treated any different than adults when the crimes they are committing are every bit as heinous as adult crimes? Youths who commit crimes are criminals; they are walking our streets, living as our neighbors, and in many instances committing additional crimes.
I strongly agree with Jessica Wilde when she says, “All crimes committed by juveniles should and must be treated in the same regard, it not to punish heinous acts, then to provide justice to the families of victims (Wilde 2). As a child myself, I was raised in a family who believes in punishments, spankings, and repercussions for the actions of the children.
Some say morals are learned, others say we inherit morals at birth, either way, a criminal is a criminal and must be punished as such. Should we punish all juveniles as adults?
Probably not with lesser crimes, but some crimes are certainly more heinous than others, and those crimes like murder and rape are adult crimes. It really doesn’t matter the age of the criminal, it they are committing crimes that are inherently adult in nature, then yes, these criminals absolutely should be punished as an adult regardless of their age. Our courts, our schools, nor our societies, should ever allow anyone, child or adult, get away with murder.
The Death Penalty for Juveniles. Please register or login for free access to our collection of supplementary materials. Evaluating a Juvenile’s Culpability in Capital Cases. Issues in the Gary Graham Case Related to the Death Penalty for Juveniles. Related Links. In a 2. Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the execution of people who were under 1. The Roper opinion drew upon a 2.
Court holding that the execution of persons with mental retardation is unconstitutional: in both decisions, the Court reasoned that these special groups of offenders are less culpable than adult offenders with no intellectual impairment who committed the same crimes. The Court also examined the number of state legislatures that did and did not authorize the punishment of death for persons under 1. As a result of the Roper decision, 7.
Prior to the ruling, 2. Evaluating a Juvenile’s Culpability in Capital Cases. Please register or login for free access to our collection of supplementary materials.
Key Supreme Court Cases on the Death Penalty for Juveniles. The constitutionality of executing persons for crimes committed when they were under the age of 1. Supreme Court has evaluated in several cases since the death penalty was reinstated in 1.
In Thompson v. Oklahoma (1. Court recognized that the age of the offender was an important consideration when trying to determine how the individual should be punished.
The Court endorsed the proposition that less culpability should attach to a crime committed by a juvenile than to a comparable crime committed by an adult. Their inexperience, less education, and less intelligence make the teenager less able to evaluate the consequences of his or her conduct while at the same time he or she is much more apt to be motivated by mere emotion or peer pressure than is an adult. The reasons why juveniles are not trusted with the privileges and responsibilities of an adult also explain why their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.“. However, in Stanford v. Kentucky (1. 98. 9), the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the death penalty for crimes committed at ages 1.
In Atkins v. Virginia (2. Supreme Court considered whether the special characteristics of individuals with mental retardation requires that they be categorically exempted from the death penalty as a matter of federal constitutional law.
In holding that the execution of a mentally retarded persons is a constitutionally forbidden Cruel and Punusual Punishment, the Court asserted that “because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, they do not act with a level of moral culpability that characterizes the more serious adult criminal conduct.” The standard put forth in Atkins was not lack of legal responsibility—for individuals with mental retardation often know the difference between right and wrong—but of diminished criminal culpability. Because of their mental impairments, they “have a diminished capacity to understand and process information, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others.. Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their criminal culpability.”. Victim’s rights advocates protested a further narrowing of the number of individuals who were eligible for the death penalty. A number of attorneys general in states that allowed the execution of juvenile defendants and the Texas- based Justice for All organization submitted amicus briefs in the Roper case requesting that the Supreme Court uphold Stanford. In addition, they argued that the Court should not group juveniles together as a class of defendants, but instead “acknowledge that they are all different with respect to their experience, maturity, intelligence and moral culpability.”.
By a vote of 5- 4, the U. S. Supreme Court held in Roper v. Simmons (2. 00. 5) that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution of offenders who were under the age of 1. In making its decision, the Court considered both the national consensus that existed against the practice and testimony of professional medical and psychological organizations citing new evidence of delayed brain maturation that impacts culpability determinations for juveniles. The Court’s ruling in Roper v. Simmons affected 7. Issues in the Gary Graham Case Related to the Death Penalty for Juveniles.
The case of Gary Graham highlights the issue that juvenile capital defendants faced prior to the Roper decision. Gary Graham was convicted of a murder committed when he was 1.
Under Texas law, he was eligible for the death penalty, although in many other states he would not have been. Texas law did allow his age to be offered as a reason for the jury to believe that, in the future, Graham would not be a danger to the community and therefore should be given a life sentence. Graham argued in his appeals that some jurors might instead believe that his age would actually make it more likely that he would commit further crimes and hence it served as an “aggravating factor” contributing to the likelihood of a death sentence. Under Texas law, a finding of future dangerousness by the jury typically resulted in a death sentence. Graham was executed in 2. U. S. Supreme Court prohibited the execution of juvenile defendants.
Despite the fact that Texas’ death penalty law lacked the formal consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors found in most other state laws, its statute was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1. Jurek v. Texas). In a later opinion, however, the Court held that states could not restrict the defense from putting on any relevant mitigating evidence (Lockett v. Ohio), and that the sentencer must consider such evidence in choosing between a life and death sentence (Eddings v.
Oklahoma). These decisions led to a partial striking down of Texas’s capital punishment statute in 1. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether a defendant would be a “future danger” to the community did not adequately allow for consideration of the defendant’s mental retardation as a possible mitigating factor. Penry v. Lynaugh). Some jurors might believe that a defendant like Johnny Penry with a low IQ might be more likely to commit future crimes, perhaps because he could not learn from his mistakes or be deterred by the law. That ruling forced Texas to change the way juries were instructed in death penalty cases. Juries needed to understand that a person’s mental retardation should at least be considered as reason for giving him a life sentence. Please register or login for free access to our collection of supplementary materials.
Gary Graham’s lawyers believed that the same reasoning should apply to a defendant’s youth. They took their case all the way to the Supreme Court, but were told that the ruling in Penry did not apply to Graham because it was not retroactive, i. Graham v. Collins). In a later ruling, the Court held that even in a case where Penry did apply, a defendant’s youth is not the same as a defendant’s mental retardation. Texas’ law did not have to change to give special consideration to the age of the defendant. Johnson v. Texas). Ultimately, the Court struck down the death penalty for both juveniles and the mentally retarded.
Roper v. Simmons; Atkins v. Virginia). Questions for Further Analysis: What changed between the Supreme Court’s decisions in Stanford and Roper to support the reversal of opinion on the execution of minors? How does a court know whether a particular punishment is cruel and unusual? Is this a subjective judgment based on the judge’s personal beliefs, or are there objective factors to be considered? Should international law and practices play a part in determining whether a practice has become cruel and unusual under U. S. law? Are there other groups comparable to juveniles and those with mental retardation who should be automatically barred from the death penalty? Should those with certain mental illnesses be exempted?
Those who appear to have been rehabilitated while on death row? Related Links. The Case of Gary Graham.
Stats - Does Treating Kids Like Adults Make A Difference? Juvenile Justice | FRONTLINETwo assumptions are behind recent legislation passed in many U.
S. states. which make it easier to try juvenile offenders as adults. Young offenders will receive sentences in the adult criminal system which. The threat of this harsher punishment will result in lowered juvenile crime. Although there has not been extensive research into the deterrent effects of. To date, there's no extensive research comparing the lengths of prison.
What research exists indicates that juveniles. Despite this, however, they often actually. A 1. 99. 6 Texas study found that juveniles sentenced in adult court did receive.
However, for all. In a study of the sentences received by youth offenders in New York and New. Jersey, researcher Jeffrey Fagan came to similar conclusions. He found that. adolescents transferred to criminal court were more likely to be convicted and. However, all juveniles sentenced to incarceration received nearly. To date, only two studies have examined whether stricter transfer laws result. Both found that there was no evidence to.
Criminologists Simon Singer and David Mc. Dowell evaluated the effects of New.
York's Juvenile Offender Law on the rate of serious juvenile crime. This. landmark piece of legislation was passed in 1. Singer and Mc. Dowell. New York for four years prior to the. These rates were compared with those. Philadelphia, and with. New York. The researchers found that the threat of.
A later study by social scientists Eric Jensen and Linda Metsger reached a. They sought to evaluate the deterrent effect of the. Idaho in 1. 98. 1, which required that juveniles charged. They examined arrest rates for five years.
Idaho.[4] The researchers also compared the arrest rates. Montana and Wyoming.
Idaho, and had in place a discretionary. Idaho had before the new legislation. They. found that juvenile arrests for the offenses targeted by the legislation.
Idaho, while decreasing in the other two states.[5]. Two recent large- scale studies indicate that juveniles who receive harsher.
In fact, after their. Columbia University researcher Jeffrey Fagan compared. New York and. New Jersey. Both states had similar statutes for first- and second- degree. However, in New York, 1. New Jersey they were adjudicated. The sample consisted of 4.
Fagan examined the recidivism rates of. He found that while there were. Seventy- six percent of robbers prosecuted. A significantly higher proportion of the criminal group were. And those that did reoffend did so. A 1. 99. 6 Florida study authored by Northeastern University researcher Donna.
Bishop also found that juveniles transferred to the criminal system were not. This research compared the recidivism rates of 2,7.
Florida with a matched sample of. Bishop and her colleagues found that although. Within two years, they were more likely to reoffend, to. The authors concluded that. The findings suggest that transfer made little difference in deterring youths.
Adult processing of youths in criminal court actually. Following the same offenders six years after their initial study, the. The exceptions were property felons, who were somewhat less.
In an overview of all the research on whether the stricter transfer laws are. Donna. Bishop cautions,"Unfortunately, assessments of the extent to which transfer. The little evidence there is, however, does not indicate that the laws are.
And there is some evidence, in fact, that they may. For analysis and discussion of these studies, and other issues involving. Youth Crime/Adult Time: Is Justice Served? Jolanta Juszkiewicz, from the Pretrial Services Resource Center.
Juvenile Offenders in Criminal Court and Adult Prison: Examining. Richard Redding, from Corrections Today, a publication of the. American Corrections Association.
Eric J. Fritsch, Tory J. Caeti. and Craig Hemmens, "Spare the Needle But Not the Punishment: The Incarceration.
Waived Youth in Texas Prisons," Crime and Delinquency, vol. The Comparative Advantage of Juvenile vs. Criminal Court Sanctions on Recidivism Among Adolescent Felony Offenders. Jeffrey Fagan, Law and Policy, Vol.
Jan/Apr. 1. 99. 6.[3] Singer, Simon I., and David Mc. Dowall. 1. 98. 8. Criminalizing Delinquency: The Deterrent Effects of the New York Juvenile. Offender Law." Law and Society Review 2.
Bishop. Donna, "Juvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal System," 2. Crime and. Justice 8. Jensen, Eric L., and Linda K.
Metsger. 1. 99. 4. A Test of the Deterrent Effect of Legislative Waiver on Violent Juvenile. Crime." Crime and Delinquency 4. Bishop, Donna. "Juvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal System," 2.
Crime and Justice. Id.[6] Fagan, Jeffrey, 1. The Comparative. Advantage of Juvenile versus Criminal Court Sanctions on Recidivism among.
Adolescent Felony Offenders." Law and Policy 1. Bishop, Donna, "Juvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal System," 2. Crime. and Justice 8. Donna M. Bishop and others, "The Transfer of. Juveniles to Criminal Court: Does It Make a Difference?," Crime and.
Delinquency, vol. Winner, L., Lanza- Kaduce, L., Bishop, D.. Frazier, C. 1. 99. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Reexamining. Crime and Delinquency 4. Bishop, Donna, "Juvenile Offenders in the. Adult Criminal System," 2.
Crime and Justice 8. FRONTLINE · wgbh · pbs. WGBH educational foundation.