If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
In recent discussion of Juvenile Justice, a controversial issue has been whether juveniles should be tried as adults in adult courts for heinous crimes they have committed. On one hand, some argue that they should not be tried as adults and do not deserve harsh sentences but as children seeking help. On the other hand, however, others argue that those who commit such heinous crimes ought to be punished no matter the age. The juvenile court was created to handle juvenile offenders on the basis of their youth rather than their crimes. The purpose of juvenile court is treatment and guidance rather than punishment. Juveniles don't have the knowledgeable or moral capacity to understand the consequences of their actions; similarly, they lack the same capacity to be trial defendants. Juveniles today are more knowledgeable and cultured at a younger age; they understand the implications of violence and how violent weapons are used. It is irrational to argue that a juvenile, who sees the effect of violence around him in the news every day, does not understand what killing really is. The fact that “adolescent killers” know how to load and shoot a gun or use a knife to kill is an indicator that they understand exactly what they're doing.
Adolescents’ comparative developmental immaturity contributes to immature decision and criminal behavior with poor decision making, not thinking about the future, giving in to peer pressure, risk taking, unformed identity, impulsivity and self-control. Nathaniel Brazill, age 14 when he committed the crime, and was convicted of first-degree murder facing life in prison without parole. When confronting a Florida grand jury, Brazill would often look confused, when the verdicts were being read. Giving the fact that juveniles are incapable to stand trail. Assistant professor Paul Thompson of neurology at the University of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document