Arguments Against Juvenile Crimes

In 1997, 22 states had provisions for transferring juveniles to criminal court which did not specify a minimum age. For those that did not specify a minimum age, the most common (16 states) was age 14. Two states, Kansas and Vermont, set the minimum age as low as 10. In many states, once a juvenile is tried and convicted as an adult, he/she must be prosecuted in criminal court for any subsequent offenses. In the United States, the courts see juvenile as juveniles, not adults, and they are under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, no matter what. Kansas and Vermont, their state has a lower age range then the United States, which is good, because crime comes in different ages, and the younger the age is, the more protection
Judge Bohren, is due to rule Monday, facing thorny questions about how young is too young to face adult consequences for crimes. Defense Attorneys for both girls argue their clients are mentally ill. All three girls were 12 at the time of the crime. Prosecutors have also argue that Judge Bohren can't decide whether the punishment is excessive because the girls hasn't been sentenced. Legislators had a rational basis to pass the law as an attempt to curb juvenile crime and to protect the public. The girls are still juveniles and should be helped as juveniles,not as adults. In St Louis County, MO., black youths are treated more harshly than whites, and deprives all low-income youths accused of crimes,no matter what race- of their Constitutional Rights. These juveniles are being less represented because of who they are and what they have not. I'm somewhat proud of the United States for it's Juvenile Justice System Act, but it is up to our Representatives of our youths,to do the right thing for our youths. No matter what race,religion,or wealth they have or have not. They look to us as adults for guidance, no matter what the circumstances