So for my homework, I have to write a research paper about juvenile offenders being tried as adults.
My opinion is that, yes, even though these teenagers are young, doesnt mean that they are stupid and dont know the difference between right or wrong. Starting from ages ranging from 1 to 3, most children are given spankings or some other form of punishment. For example, a toddler takes a toy away from his little sister and receives X amount of spanking or minutes in the time out chair. The child may or may not have learned from his punishment but still knows the consequences of taking a toy from his sister either way. Same with a teen. This teenager is probably aware of the consequences of robbery but decides he is going to rob a bank, knowing that what he is doing is wrong. He then goes to jail, does his time and is possibly reformed. If not, then he goes back for another 20 years.

These are just my opinions so... haters gonna hate.

_________________

I think it is down to the serverity of the Crime, eg. if a 16 year old Murders/* someone then i believe that they should be tried as an adult (with the exception of a death sentence depending where you are from) however if say it is Manslaughter or theft then i think that they should be tried in Juvenile courts. I would say that it also depends on the age of said offender. I would say the if the crime was servere said offender should should only be tried as an adult at the age of 16 and above, seeming as at that age they have more responcibility compared to a 12 year old.

Thank you ohno. Would you mind if I use you comment in my research paper?

_________________

Certainly, go ahead.

Thank You

_________________

I don't think you can try juvenile offenders as adults, and then exclude certain things and made exceptions here and there. While it is true that the majority of teenagers may have the same amount of common sense as adults, it is also true that a 13 year old might be just as sensible and aware of the law. How do you differentiate between too young to understand the consequences and old enough to consider them before acting? It doesn't seem fair to treat a 16 year old as an adult if he commits murder, but not in the case of manslaughter. In must also be taken into account that every person has different circumstances, and while that doesn't justify crime, it may lead some to believe they should be judged differently, whatever it may be. However, it is impossible to created a personalized judgement criteria for every person, so an age was picked to be the official 'adult' age. From thereon out you are responsible on a larger scale for your actions.

Just my personal opinion...

_________________
I'm Igloosaurus, hear me rawr

If someone doesn't understand the laws that they have to obey that's their own fault and regardless of their knowledge they should be tried as such. It is never acceptable to kill another being (unless in self-defense.) Teenagers don't have the same amount of common sense as adults, though it is common knowledge not to kill another person. The inability to comprehend the consequences shouldn't bar someone from justice as they did commit a crime that breaks the law that they are under and they should face the consequences of their actions, it is a person's duty to understand the laws at at least a basic level.

A person's circumstances are taken into consideration, though their circumstances often aren't enough to exempt a person from their crimes, really the only one that can is a mental disorder, or extreme poverty (in the case of stealing something like food).

Every person has responsibility to follow the laws, juveniles are often treated less harshly from crimes due to the fact that they have more of a life ahead of them. There isn't a set criteria for how strict a person's sentence is. It's sort of like when moderating something and someone does something, not every action will result in a ban, some will just earn a warning or two, others will be an almost immediate ban; whether or not someone knows the rules or not they are still treated as if they do, and they are still treated under the rules regardless of their knowledge because they automatically agree to following the rules and when the don't, punishment follows and it's to what the judge sees fit for their crime.

Juveniles should be treated according to their crimes and the severity of them, the laws are in place for a reason, and whether or not a person commits them is their fault and they should be submitted to justice. Age shouldn't be an excuse for a crime to be belittled because age doesn't mean maturity, whether emotional or mental.

Recently it was found that a group of 5th graders were planning to kill a girl in their class that was annoying. It would not be fair to give them leave because of their age, luckily the crime wasn't committed and I believe they are having to undergo therapy to prevent a situation like that from arising, but if it did happen, I think that psychological therapy along with helping the community in some way like helping at an animal shelter under supervision of a probation officer; by no means any physical labour, but a service geared to make the individuals help others.

Mah 2 cents on ze topic.

_________________

Like I said before, all humans have the ability to reason. If taking a toy gets toy punished, then wouldn't robbing a bank be the same? Even a toddler knows that stealing is wrong. Mental Illness is possibly the only excuse for criminal action.

_________________

And even that, it's not really an excuse to do the crime, but more as an explanation for why they might have done the crime and then they get institutionalized for the rest of their life.

_________________

Apparently, courts have been using this system of judgement for a few months now and they say that underage criminal affiliation has gone up since. But I was looking into the national juvenile offenders trend and they seem to have dropped dramatically. So they are withdrawing this act in what appears to be next week.

_________________

that makes sense because when in prison you get shelter, food, and entertainment for free. once out you have that permanently on you and you can't get it removed and employment is difficult so it's pretty much better to commit another crime to get put back in jail.

_________________

Maybe a difference between 13 to 18 years and adult punishment would be that juveniles would be given a "second" chance. But still. Its the own teens fault for getting that on their record. And if they want to commit another crime, they can go back to jail for "x" amount of years.

_________________