Juvenile delinquency, in the American judiciary branch, can hold a 13-17 year old, with allegations of an adult sentence. James C. Backstorm, a Dakota County attorney, states that, "prosecuting juvenile offenders in adult courts is appropriate and necessary in certain cases to protect public safety and hold youths appropriately accountable for their crimes." In other words, Backstorm is stating that teenagers who commit serious crimes should be dealt with accordingly, and I agree because, criminals who willingly break the law should receive some form of justice. But, where is the distinction between charging teens as adults? Teens who are taking the liberty to break the law, should receive justice for their deviant behavior. A deranged teen that has the same intent as a adult criminal, should be dealt with in a decisive, judicial manner.
Hansen, B. (2001, April 27). Kids in prison. CQ Researcher, 11, 345-374. Retrieved September 5, 2009, from CQ Researcher Online, Web. CQresearcher.com
It is said many time, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" but what are the retribution for those "time" in juvenile or in worst case in prison? Studies showed that teens tried as adults come out of prison more dangerous than when they went in compares to juvenile (Katel). I disagreed against enforcing tougher policies on juveniles teenager because they'll just end up worst in prison than they were in juvenile.Juveniles teenager under 18 who didn't murder anyone deserve a second chance so the first step toward redemption should be their parent wishes, if they fails or not obligated than it is up to the communities because it their responsibilities for giving the wrong type of environment for the kids to grow up into.
The standard way of thinking about juveniles being tried as adults has it that its unlawful and inadmissible. Frank Orlando, a director of youth policy, at the University of Nova states that, "One must ask why the government prevents a child from driving a car, voting, drinking alcohol or serving in the military because of an age disability, but considers 13- year-olds capable of understanding adult criminal procedures." In making this comment, Orlando argues that a teenager who is willfully breaking the law should be tried as a juvenile not an adult. Those unfamiliar with this school of thought may be interested to know that it basically boils down to the degree of the crime. If a 13-year-old brings a gun to school and kills a number of innocent people, which is a serious act of violence, a just judge will punish the 13-year-old offender accordingly, and in some cases the teenager will receive an adult sentence. Although I agree with Orlando to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that, the current juvenile justice process may be unconstitutional, and does not reduce crime or enhance public safety. Orlando claims that, the juvenile justice system is irrelevant. Anyone familiar with Columbine has long known that juveniles are capable of such malevolence. According to the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), "those who commit criminal offenses are apprehended, prosecuted and held accountable for their crimes." If the NDAA is right that teenagers should be judged upon their degree of the crime, as I think they are, then we need to reassess the popular assumption that, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
Hansen, B. (2001, April 27). Kids in prison. CQ Researcher, 11, 345-374. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from CQ Researcher Online
Although it may seem trivial, it is in fact crucial in terms of today's concern over whether or not teens should be tried as adults. Ultimately, what is at stake here is the safety of the community. Teenager's that break the law, in the same way as adults, should be dealt with in a judicial way. Attorney, James C. Backstorm corroborates, "the types of multiple killings by children which we have witnessed in schools across America were unheard of even a decade ago. These violent crimes warrant a strong and swift response by our criminal justice system. Protection of the public safety demands no less." I agree that juveniles should be put on trial as adults, a point that needs more emphasizing since so many people believe that adults and teenagers are completely opposite, what would you do when they commit the same crime? My discussion of juveniles being held with allegations of an adult sentence is in fact addressing the larger matter of why teenagers choose to act in deviant ways. In Frank Orlando's view, "the laws allowing so many children to be tried as adults and sent to prison need to be repealed. We need to follow the examples of progressive states like Minnesota and New Mexico and return decisions about juvenile jurisdiction to the judiciary, based on the overwhelming scientific evidence." In other words Orlando believer’s, juveniles are irrelevant to adult allegations. Though I concede that some teenagers are more likely to re-offend once they are placed in adult prisons, I still conserve the laws of America and am a firm believer in justice. Orlando states that we need to change our laws, and look at the scientific research. Orlando overlooks the facts that, "few jurisdictions prosecute more than 1-2 percent of juvenile offenders as adults (Backstorm)." I'm not stating that all juvenile delinquency is punishable by adult laws; I'm asserting that juvenile’s that commit a serious crime, will likely stand trial as an adult. Consider an adult who kills innocent people, along the same lines, consider a teen who kills innocent people. Are these two perpetrators committing the same crime, are teenagers not capable of committing such abhorrent acts? As a result they will both receive some form of justice and be sentenced accordingly, although some might disagree with this statement, I still assert that a deranged teen that has the same intent as a adult criminal, should be dealt with in a decisive, judicial manner.
Katel, P. (2008, November 7). Juvenile justice. CQ Researcher, 18, 913-936. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from CQ Researcher Online
As you quoted, "those who commit criminal offenses are apprehended, prosecuted and held accountable for their crime," even for teenager, there are some factors missing from this statement and that is what causes the crime to be committed in the first place. You cannot blame teens entirely for their action, something else must have triggered for it to happen. Another factor is that if the police caught the wrong person because it’s not 100% certain in all cases. Lastly, as you pointed out that teen and adult who committed a serious crime with the same intent should be trial in adult court, I agree that would have been the case, but there is the lack of development in the brain of a teenager that should take into consideration when tried (Moran).
Moran, Mark. "Adolescent Brain Development Argues Against Teen Executions -- Moran 38 (10): 8 -- Psychiatr News." Psychiatric News. Web. 14 Sept. 2009.
More than 200,000 juveniles under the age of 18 are going against courts using adult sanctions. Is this right? Are the teenagers receiving too harsh of a punishment for their crime? I believe not. "You do the crime, you do the time," this is the slogan to the viewer of America all across the United States. Juveniles within the ages of 15-17 should be trialed appropriately and held responsible for their own actions and wrong doings. Not because police are trying to set an example out for it, but because the level of offense that was committed deserves some form of justice. I believe no matter the age of the offender, consequences should be distributed equally.
Katel, Peter. “Juvenile Justice.” Library.cqress.com. November 7, 2008. Web.
I think Peter is mistaken because he overlooks the intent a deviant juvenile delinquent may have. I disagree with Tint's view that the neurological development in the brain of a teen is not fully developed because, recent research studies consistently find that the first three years of life are critical to the emotional and intellectual development of a child. Emotional and intellectual signs of the brain will not be fully developed until the age of 9. Also, if we let the teenager who has committed a crime off with a slap on the wrist, then who gets the blame? Although I agree with Peter's statement up to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that teens are a victim of prosecution. What do we do when a teen confesses a serious crime, like murder, and his intentions? Do we punish the parents? Or do we take decisive action? The American people would advocate justice. Although I grant that some cases involving juveniles deserve a second chance and non-adult prisons, I still maintain that we decide the teenager’s future on the degree of the crime they have committed.
Newberger, J. J. “New Brain Development Research: A Wonderful Window of Opportunity to Build Public Support for Early Childhood Education.” Young Children 52 pp. 4-7. Umext.maine.edu. web.
Tint's claim states, "teens are dependent on the guardian so it's part of their responsibility as well," rests upon the questionable assumption that, are the parents really to blame? Although, I will agree that parents have a lot of influence on children’s character, but parents cannot be at fault for their teens actions. Teenagers are one-hundred percent capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
Peter, you mentioned that a factor is that the police possibly caught the wrong person. "All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in the court of law." That is what trials are all about. Police and detectives have to come up with a handful of evidence to ensure the conviction of the case. In addition, depending on the evidence that is gathered, only then will the judge and jurors conclude on the sentence. You also mentioned that juveniles are not fully capable of committing crimes because there brain has not fully developed. The brain does not fully develop until the early twenties, and the last part to develop is the impulse control located in the frontal lobe (James C. Backstrom). However, this does not mean that teenagers do not have a sense between what is right and wrong (Backstrom).
Katel, Peter. “Juvenile Justice.” Library.cqress.com. November 7, 2008. Web.
As a response to Tint's statement about the teens being dependent on their parents, teenagers should be responsible for their own actions. The peers or crowds that the teenagers are hanging with have a major influence on behaviors in particular age groups, specifically older teenagers and young adults. Parents will have some control over their children, but they cannot control what they do.
In the U.S., a total of 39 states allow 17 year olds to be tried as adults, nine states allow 16 year olds, and only 2 allow trials with 15 year olds (New York and North Carolina). Many believe that majority of the offenders are receiving low level offenses but this information can be very misleading. There are only 11 states that allow juveniles between the ages of 15 and 16 to be tried as an adult (Katel). Another statistic is in the US, 31 states must sentence juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole if convicted of first degree murder or other criminalist acts.
Katel, Peter. “Juvenile Justice.” Library.cqress.com. November 7, 2008. Web.
I agree with Nic that majorities teenagers are aware of what right and wrong, on the other hand what motivate an average teen to commit crime compare to an adult are somewhat different in the perspectives. There is a lot of reason why a teen would commit a serious crime, but an adult have a much clearer motive. For a teen, family issues, peer pressures, communities or because they think they'll get off easy (Wickliffe). These become part of them as they grew up. Although adult may had the same experience as teen, they have independence from all their past relations. So if an adult did commit crime, then by all mean he/she is punishable proportional to the weight of the crime. But a teen committing a crime need to further examination. I don't think I've overlook the intents on the teen because they are dependent on the guardian so it's part of their responsibility as well; children does tends to look up to parent.
You said a derange teen should be punish accordingly, but there is no right way to punish the teen. The court must make a decision base on the background of juvenile teen upon whatever crime he/she committed. There is also a question of sanity, for example if the teen has some type mental problem then they should be sentence to mental institute, but for those who are sane should be punishable through rehabilitation or in the care of the parent's. It doesn't help the fact that you put juveniles teen in the same place together because they'll just get worse by abusing each other. For prison Even if there are guards or patrol around it is not guaranteed.
Doswell, Toni"The effects of prison rape - by Toni Doswell - Helium." Helium - Where Knowledge Rules. Web. 14 Sept. 2009.
Ultimately what is at stake here is the safety of or community. Teenagers can be a threat to society in the same way as an adult criminal. The American people stand for equality and justice. Common sense indicates that if you break the law, then ultimatley suffer the concequences. I believe that every criminal should stand trail for their deviant acts. Justice tolerates no less. Also, when a teen breaks the law, he will stand before a judge and accept whatever sentence is given to him for breaking the law.
Peter, you made a statement that some of the trials need to include the possibility of insanity. This may be true; however, the offender or juvenile must plead insanity before that is looked upon. After that plea, an investigation is brought forward and access to medical records is granted. You also stated, "The court must make a decision based on background." If a teen were to be charged with murder, but had no criminal background, would you be willing to declare him not guilty?
Of course the teenagers are going to be labeled, every criminal is. Frankly, I do not believe that the parents are the ones to blame. The community caused the influence along with the group of other teenagers. Matthew Caspari, a lawyer in Washington D.C., was taking a walk with his wife and daughter, when he approached one of his neighbors being attacked by a juvenile. Caspari called the police instantly while making his way towards the offender. The juvenile started to attack Caspari once he realized Caspari was on the phone with the officials, so the police rushed to the scene to arrest the teenager. After the family court released him while waiting for his trial, Caspari saw the juvenile hanging out with a bad crowd. Caspari states that most of the juvenile offenders do not take consequences for their actions seriously. He also states if the community can assign help and therapy for young offenders, the young offenders are eligible for trial in adult courts.
Katel, Peter. “Juvenile Justice.” Library.cqress.com. November 7, 2008. Web.
Crime preventing strategies could include more community-based events; programs intended to directly target gangs, less violence on television, and ultimately, more law enforcement. Preventing crime has been an issue for America for decades, but the rules and regulations to crime have been established. Yet, many juveniles are only being slapped on the wrist for the crime they committed. Florida State Senator, Ginny Brown-Waite highly encourages the crackdown on juvenile violence. She mentioned that our justice system should no longer distribute on slap on the wrist, and start handling youth offenders in a more appropriate manner. Brown-Waite sponsored a measure for juveniles between the ages of 15 and 17 to be sentenced to life in prison for the use of a handgun during a violent crime. However, Mark Schindler, an attorney for Washington D.C., based youth law center, resorts Florida's justice system to be a horrible model, and that the deterrent is not what it has claimed to be. Schindler states, "All the research out there shows that kids who go into the adult system are more likely to reoffend upon release, or more likely to commit a more serious crime than similar kids who go through the Juvenile System." Schindler does make a good point of reference, but if the crimes that were committed involved murder or acts along the lines where the community would not be safe, there should be no reason juveniles should be let back into that community unless their sentence was served along with court ordered rehabilitation practices.
Hanson, Brian. "Kids in Prison." Library.cqpress.com. April 27, 2001. Web.
Studies say that the brain in not fully developed until the early to mid twenties. The last part to develop is in the frontal lobe relating to impulse control. Just because the brain does not completely develop until the twenties, does not mean juveniles should not receive punishments for their actions and wrong doings. Juveniles are capable of realizing what is right and what is wrong. Of course, not every juvenile should be tried as an adult, but if the circumstances are to the point where adult sanctions are necessary, adult trials should be issued. A statistic from the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 51 percent of juvenile cases that were transferred into adult settings involved person-to-person crime. The other 49 percent were crimes involving drugs, property crimes, and public order violations including weapons, sex and liquor violations. In addition, most of the adult trials are for the more dangerous and chronic offenders (James C. Backstrom Are Sentencing Policies Too Harsh?) Frank Orlando, director of the Center for the Study of Youth Policy states that putting harsh sentences on youth is not going to make public safety better and it will not make our crime rates drop. In fact, many suggest that putting youth in adult prisons will only make them worse than what they were to begin with. This may be true, but this still doesn't change the fact that juveniles can get away with violent acts because of what they could become. For example, Caspari was attacked by a teenager shortly after his neighbor was attacked. Whether it was an adult who did it or a teenager, the same crime has still been committed.
Katel, Peter. “Juvenile Justice.” Library.cqress.com. November 7, 2008. Web.
A crime took place in Minneapolis, MN, that involved two 17-year-old teenagers that gunned down on of the teenagers' parents in 2006. The minimum punishment for first degree murder in the state of Minnesota is life in prison without the possibility of parole. The result to their trial was 30 years in prison, and after they served their 30 years, the two boys would then be eligible to apply for release. James C. Backstrom said, "There was no question they should have been charged with first degree murder." The two boys had no criminal background on them. Backstrom believes that locking the two boys up for the rest of their lives was not the right thing to do. They committed murder. No matter if, the boys had criminal backgrounds on them, the two boys committed a crime involving killing one of their parents. However, after their 30-year sentence, the juveniles have a second chance at life. A second chance is always worth taking, but strict policies and procedures need to be acted upon their release (Katel, P. (2008, November 7). Juvenile justice. CQ Researcher).
Katel, Peter. “Juvenile Justice.” Library.cqress.com. November 7, 2008. Web.
Juvenile delinquency, in the American judiciary branch, can hold a 13-17 year old, with allegations of an adult sentence. James C. Backstorm, a Dakota County attorney, states that, "prosecuting juvenile offenders in adult courts is appropriate and necessary in certain cases to protect public safety and hold youths appropriately accountable for their crimes." In other words, Backstorm is stating that teenagers who commit serious crimes should be dealt with accordingly, and I agree because, criminals who willingly break the law should receive some form of justice. But, where is the distinction between charging teens as adults? Teens who are taking the liberty to break the law, should receive justice for their deviant behavior. A deranged teen that has the same intent as a adult criminal, should be dealt with in a decisive, judicial manner.
ReplyDeleteHansen, B. (2001, April 27). Kids in prison. CQ Researcher, 11, 345-374. Retrieved September 5, 2009, from CQ Researcher Online, Web. CQresearcher.com
It is said many time, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" but what are the retribution for those "time" in juvenile or in worst case in prison? Studies showed that teens tried as adults come out of prison more dangerous than when they went in compares to juvenile (Katel). I disagreed against enforcing tougher policies on juveniles teenager because they'll just end up worst in prison than they were in juvenile.Juveniles teenager under 18 who didn't murder anyone deserve a second chance so the first step toward redemption should be their parent wishes, if they fails or not obligated than it is up to the communities because it their responsibilities for giving the wrong type of environment for the kids to grow up into.
ReplyDeleteKatel, Peter. "Juvenile justice". CQ reseacher Nov. 7, 2008: Web.
The standard way of thinking about juveniles being tried as adults has it that its unlawful and inadmissible. Frank Orlando, a director of youth policy, at the University of Nova states that, "One must ask why the government prevents a child from driving a car, voting, drinking alcohol or serving in the military because of an age disability, but considers 13- year-olds capable of understanding adult criminal procedures." In making this comment, Orlando argues that a teenager who is willfully breaking the law should be tried as a juvenile not an adult. Those unfamiliar with this school of thought may be interested to know that it basically boils down to the degree of the crime. If a 13-year-old brings a gun to school and kills a number of innocent people, which is a serious act of violence, a just judge will punish the 13-year-old offender accordingly, and in some cases the teenager will receive an adult sentence. Although I agree with Orlando to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that, the current juvenile justice process may be unconstitutional, and does not reduce crime or enhance public safety. Orlando claims that, the juvenile justice system is irrelevant. Anyone familiar with Columbine has long known that juveniles are capable of such malevolence. According to the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), "those who commit criminal offenses are apprehended, prosecuted and held accountable for their crimes." If the NDAA is right that teenagers should be judged upon their degree of the crime, as I think they are, then we need to reassess the popular assumption that, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
ReplyDeleteHansen, B. (2001, April 27). Kids in prison. CQ Researcher, 11, 345-374. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from CQ Researcher Online
Although it may seem trivial, it is in fact crucial in terms of today's concern over whether or not teens should be tried as adults. Ultimately, what is at stake here is the safety of the community. Teenager's that break the law, in the same way as adults, should be dealt with in a judicial way. Attorney, James C. Backstorm corroborates, "the types of multiple killings by children which we have witnessed in schools across America were unheard of even a decade ago. These violent crimes warrant a strong and swift response by our criminal justice system. Protection of the public safety demands no less." I agree that juveniles should be put on trial as adults, a point that needs more emphasizing since so many people believe that adults and teenagers are completely opposite, what would you do when they commit the same crime? My discussion of juveniles being held with allegations of an adult sentence is in fact addressing the larger matter of why teenagers choose to act in deviant ways. In Frank Orlando's view, "the laws allowing so many children to be tried as adults and sent to prison need to be repealed. We need to follow the examples of progressive states like Minnesota and New Mexico and return decisions about juvenile jurisdiction to the judiciary, based on the overwhelming scientific evidence." In other words Orlando believer’s, juveniles are irrelevant to adult allegations. Though I concede that some teenagers are more likely to re-offend once they are placed in adult prisons, I still conserve the laws of America and am a firm believer in justice. Orlando states that we need to change our laws, and look at the scientific research. Orlando overlooks the facts that, "few jurisdictions prosecute more than 1-2 percent of juvenile offenders as adults (Backstorm)." I'm not stating that all juvenile delinquency is punishable by adult laws; I'm asserting that juvenile’s that commit a serious crime, will likely stand trial as an adult. Consider an adult who kills innocent people, along the same lines, consider a teen who kills innocent people. Are these two perpetrators committing the same crime, are teenagers not capable of committing such abhorrent acts? As a result they will both receive some form of justice and be sentenced accordingly, although some might disagree with this statement, I still assert that a deranged teen that has the same intent as a adult criminal, should be dealt with in a decisive, judicial manner.
ReplyDeleteKatel, P. (2008, November 7). Juvenile justice. CQ Researcher, 18, 913-936. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from CQ Researcher Online
As you quoted, "those who commit criminal offenses are apprehended, prosecuted and held accountable for their crime," even for teenager, there are some factors missing from this statement and that is what causes the crime to be committed in the first place. You cannot blame teens entirely for their action, something else must have triggered for it to happen. Another factor is that if the police caught the wrong person because it’s not 100% certain in all cases. Lastly, as you pointed out that teen and adult who committed a serious crime with the same intent should be trial in adult court, I agree that would have been the case, but there is the lack of development in the brain of a teenager that should take into consideration when tried (Moran).
ReplyDeleteMoran, Mark. "Adolescent Brain Development Argues Against Teen Executions -- Moran 38 (10): 8 -- Psychiatr News." Psychiatric News. Web. 14 Sept. 2009.
More than 200,000 juveniles under the age of 18 are going against courts using adult sanctions. Is this right? Are the teenagers receiving too harsh of a punishment for their crime? I believe not. "You do the crime, you do the time," this is the slogan to the viewer of America all across the United States. Juveniles within the ages of 15-17 should be trialed appropriately and held responsible for their own actions and wrong doings. Not because police are trying to set an example out for it, but because the level of offense that was committed deserves some form of justice. I believe no matter the age of the offender, consequences should be distributed equally.
ReplyDeleteKatel, Peter. “Juvenile Justice.” Library.cqress.com. November 7, 2008. Web.
I think Peter is mistaken because he overlooks the intent a deviant juvenile delinquent may have. I disagree with Tint's view that the neurological development in the brain of a teen is not fully developed because, recent research studies consistently find that the first three years of life are critical to the emotional and intellectual development of a child. Emotional and intellectual signs of the brain will not be fully developed until the age of 9. Also, if we let the teenager who has committed a crime off with a slap on the wrist, then who gets the blame? Although I agree with Peter's statement up to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that teens are a victim of prosecution. What do we do when a teen confesses a serious crime, like murder, and his intentions? Do we punish the parents? Or do we take decisive action? The American people would advocate justice. Although I grant that some cases involving juveniles deserve a second chance and non-adult prisons, I still maintain that we decide the teenager’s future on the degree of the crime they have committed.
ReplyDeleteNewberger, J. J. “New Brain Development Research: A Wonderful Window of Opportunity to Build Public Support for Early Childhood Education.” Young Children 52 pp. 4-7. Umext.maine.edu. web.
Tint's claim states, "teens are dependent on the guardian so it's part of their responsibility as well," rests upon the questionable assumption that, are the parents really to blame? Although, I will agree that parents have a lot of influence on children’s character, but parents cannot be at fault for their teens actions. Teenagers are one-hundred percent capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
ReplyDeletePeter, you mentioned that a factor is that the police possibly caught the wrong person. "All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in the court of law." That is what trials are all about. Police and detectives have to come up with a handful of evidence to ensure the conviction of the case. In addition, depending on the evidence that is gathered, only then will the judge and jurors conclude on the sentence. You also mentioned that juveniles are not fully capable of committing crimes because there brain has not fully developed. The brain does not fully develop until the early twenties, and the last part to develop is the impulse control located in the frontal lobe (James C. Backstrom). However, this does not mean that teenagers do not have a sense between what is right and wrong (Backstrom).
ReplyDeleteKatel, Peter. “Juvenile Justice.” Library.cqress.com. November 7, 2008. Web.
As a response to Tint's statement about the teens being dependent on their parents, teenagers should be responsible for their own actions. The peers or crowds that the teenagers are hanging with have a major influence on behaviors in particular age groups, specifically older teenagers and young adults. Parents will have some control over their children, but they cannot control what they do.
ReplyDeleteIn the U.S., a total of 39 states allow 17 year olds to be tried as adults, nine states allow 16 year olds, and only 2 allow trials with 15 year olds (New York and North Carolina). Many believe that majority of the offenders are receiving low level offenses but this information can be very misleading. There are only 11 states that allow juveniles between the ages of 15 and 16 to be tried as an adult (Katel). Another statistic is in the US, 31 states must sentence juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole if convicted of first degree murder or other criminalist acts.
ReplyDeleteKatel, Peter. “Juvenile Justice.” Library.cqress.com. November 7, 2008. Web.
I agree with Nic that majorities teenagers are aware of what right and wrong, on the other hand what motivate an average teen to commit crime compare to an adult are somewhat different in the perspectives. There is a lot of reason why a teen would commit a serious crime, but an adult have a much clearer motive. For a teen, family issues, peer pressures, communities or because they think they'll get off easy (Wickliffe). These become part of them as they grew up. Although adult may had the same experience as teen, they have independence from all their past relations. So if an adult did commit crime, then by all mean he/she is punishable proportional to the weight of the crime. But a teen committing a crime need to further examination. I don't think I've overlook the intents on the teen because they are dependent on the guardian so it's part of their responsibility as well; children does tends to look up to parent.
ReplyDeleteWickliffe, A. Joseph. "00.02.07: Why Juveniles Commit Crimes." Yale University. Web. 13 Sept. 2009.
You said a derange teen should be punish accordingly, but there is no right way to punish the teen. The court must make a decision base on the background of juvenile teen upon whatever crime he/she committed.
ReplyDeleteThere is also a question of sanity, for example if the teen has some type mental problem then they should be sentence to mental institute, but for those who are sane should be punishable through rehabilitation or in the care of the parent's. It doesn't help the fact that you put juveniles teen in the same place together because they'll just get worse by abusing each other. For prison Even if there are guards or patrol around it is not guaranteed.
Doswell, Toni"The effects of prison rape - by Toni Doswell - Helium." Helium - Where Knowledge Rules. Web. 14 Sept. 2009.
Ultimately what is at stake here is the safety of or community. Teenagers can be a threat to society in the same way as an adult criminal. The American people stand for equality and justice. Common sense indicates that if you break the law, then ultimatley suffer the concequences. I believe that every criminal should stand trail for their deviant acts. Justice tolerates no less. Also, when a teen breaks the law, he will stand before a judge and accept whatever sentence is given to him for breaking the law.
ReplyDeletePeter, you made a statement that some of the trials need to include the possibility of insanity. This may be true; however, the offender or juvenile must plead insanity before that is looked upon. After that plea, an investigation is brought forward and access to medical records is granted. You also stated, "The court must make a decision based on background." If a teen were to be charged with murder, but had no criminal background, would you be willing to declare him not guilty?
ReplyDeleteOf course the teenagers are going to be labeled, every criminal is. Frankly, I do not believe that the parents are the ones to blame. The community caused the influence along with the group of other teenagers. Matthew Caspari, a lawyer in Washington D.C., was taking a walk with his wife and daughter, when he approached one of his neighbors being attacked by a juvenile. Caspari called the police instantly while making his way towards the offender. The juvenile started to attack Caspari once he realized Caspari was on the phone with the officials, so the police rushed to the scene to arrest the teenager. After the family court released him while waiting for his trial, Caspari saw the juvenile hanging out with a bad crowd. Caspari states that most of the juvenile offenders do not take consequences for their actions seriously. He also states if the community can assign help and therapy for young offenders, the young offenders are eligible for trial in adult courts.
ReplyDeleteKatel, Peter. “Juvenile Justice.” Library.cqress.com. November 7, 2008. Web.
Crime preventing strategies could include more community-based events; programs intended to directly target gangs, less violence on television, and ultimately, more law enforcement. Preventing crime has been an issue for America for decades, but the rules and regulations to crime have been established. Yet, many juveniles are only being slapped on the wrist for the crime they committed. Florida State Senator, Ginny Brown-Waite highly encourages the crackdown on juvenile violence. She mentioned that our justice system should no longer distribute on slap on the wrist, and start handling youth offenders in a more appropriate manner. Brown-Waite sponsored a measure for juveniles between the ages of 15 and 17 to be sentenced to life in prison for the use of a handgun during a violent crime. However, Mark Schindler, an attorney for Washington D.C., based youth law center, resorts Florida's justice system to be a horrible model, and that the deterrent is not what it has claimed to be. Schindler states, "All the research out there shows that kids who go into the adult system are more likely to reoffend upon release, or more likely to commit a more serious crime than similar kids who go through the Juvenile System." Schindler does make a good point of reference, but if the crimes that were committed involved murder or acts along the lines where the community would not be safe, there should be no reason juveniles should be let back into that community unless their sentence was served along with court ordered rehabilitation practices.
ReplyDeleteHanson, Brian. "Kids in Prison." Library.cqpress.com. April 27, 2001. Web.
Studies say that the brain in not fully developed until the early to mid twenties. The last part to develop is in the frontal lobe relating to impulse control. Just because the brain does not completely develop until the twenties, does not mean juveniles should not receive punishments for their actions and wrong doings. Juveniles are capable of realizing what is right and what is wrong. Of course, not every juvenile should be tried as an adult, but if the circumstances are to the point where adult sanctions are necessary, adult trials should be issued. A statistic from the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 51 percent of juvenile cases that were transferred into adult settings involved person-to-person crime. The other 49 percent were crimes involving drugs, property crimes, and public order violations including weapons, sex and liquor violations. In addition, most of the adult trials are for the more dangerous and chronic offenders (James C. Backstrom Are Sentencing Policies Too Harsh?) Frank Orlando, director of the Center for the Study of Youth Policy states that putting harsh sentences on youth is not going to make public safety better and it will not make our crime rates drop. In fact, many suggest that putting youth in adult prisons will only make them worse than what they were to begin with. This may be true, but this still doesn't change the fact that juveniles can get away with violent acts because of what they could become. For example, Caspari was attacked by a teenager shortly after his neighbor was attacked. Whether it was an adult who did it or a teenager, the same crime has still been committed.
ReplyDeleteKatel, Peter. “Juvenile Justice.” Library.cqress.com. November 7, 2008. Web.
A crime took place in Minneapolis, MN, that involved two 17-year-old teenagers that gunned down on of the teenagers' parents in 2006. The minimum punishment for first degree murder in the state of Minnesota is life in prison without the possibility of parole. The result to their trial was 30 years in prison, and after they served their 30 years, the two boys would then be eligible to apply for release. James C. Backstrom said, "There was no question they should have been charged with first degree murder." The two boys had no criminal background on them. Backstrom believes that locking the two boys up for the rest of their lives was not the right thing to do. They committed murder. No matter if, the boys had criminal backgrounds on them, the two boys committed a crime involving killing one of their parents. However, after their 30-year sentence, the juveniles have a second chance at life. A second chance is always worth taking, but strict policies and procedures need to be acted upon their release (Katel, P. (2008, November 7). Juvenile justice. CQ Researcher).
ReplyDeleteKatel, Peter. “Juvenile Justice.” Library.cqress.com. November 7, 2008. Web.