Juvenile dilegency, in the American judiciary branch, can hold a 13-17 year old, with allegations of an adult sentence. James C. Backstorm, a Dakota County attourney, 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 recieve 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 recieve justice for their deviant behavior. A teen that has the same intent as a adult criminal, should be dealt with in a decisive judicial manner.
Hansen, B. "Kids in prison. CQ Researcher. CQ Researcher, September 5. 2009 Web.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe standard way of thinking about juviniles being tried as adults has it that its unlawful and inadmissable. 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 juvinile 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 recieve 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 juvinile justice system is irrelevant. Anyone familiar with Colombine has long known that juvinliles are capable of such malevolence. According to the National District Attorneys Assosiation (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 wether 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 juviniles should be put on trial as adults, a point that needs more emphasizing since so many people belive that adults and teenagers are completly opposite, what would you do when they commit the same crime? My disscusion of juviniles being held with allegations of an adult sentence is in fact adressing 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 believe's, juviniles are irrelevant to audult 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 beliver 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 juvinile dilenquency is punishable by adult laws, I'm asserting that juvinile's that commit a serious crime, will likely stand trail as an adult. Consider an adult who kills innocent people, along the same lines, consider a teen who kills innocent people. Are these two perpatrators commiting the same crime, are teenagers not capable of committing such abhorrent acts? As a result they will both recieve 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
ReplyDeleteAs 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 the crime to be committed in the first place. You cannot blame the teen entire for their action, something else must trigger for it to had happened. Another factor is that the if the police caught the wrong person. Lastly, as you pointed out that teen and adult who commited 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 tryed.
ReplyDeleteYou 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. You also mentioned that juveniles are not fully capable of committing crimes because there brain hasn't fully developed. The brain does not fully develop until the early twenties, and the last part to develop is the impulse control in the frontal lobe. However, this does not mean that teenagers do not have a sense between right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nic that majorities teenagers are aware of what right and wrong, on the other what motivate an average teen to commit crime compare to an average adult are somewhat different in the perspectives. There are 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 becomes part of them as they grew up. Although adult may had the same experience as teen, they have independene 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.
ReplyDeleteWickliffe, A Joseph. "00.02.07: Why Juveniles Commit Crimes." Yale University. Web. 13 Sept. 2009.
ReplyDeleteTint'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 childrens charachter, but parents cannot be at fault for their teens actions. Teenagers are one-hundred percent capable of distingushing between right and wrong.
ReplyDelete