Age doesn't define whether or not you've become an adult it's the maturity that defines whether you have reached the certain point in your life where you are capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong. Sooner or later, but some happen to do so quicker. When a person turns eighteen you have the opportunity to do certain things, such as no longer having a curfew, being able to purchase alcohol ,and also voting rights, meaning that you are completely responsible for the actions you take. Looking at different cases where adolescents have committed a crime they knew that they weren't going to get punished like adults, even though they knew what they were doing was wrong. Adolescents commit crimes as if they were adults, and aren't
…show more content…
He essentially analyzes the idea that teenagers don't fully develop until they become adults. In the article Thomson states, “Even though teens are experiencing a wildfire of tissue loss in their brains, that does not remove their accountability”. All teenagers are aware of their actions, but some happen to ignore the consequences. They do not believe in the aftermath of occasions. I understand that some parts of the brain don't develop as quickly , Thompson mentions, “...finding that a massive loss of brain tissue occurs in the teen years”(89).for their actions. This does not justify the actions of the teen agers they are old enough to be accountable for their actions. Some teenagers believe that it is okay to commit crimes, but they don't realize how important it is for them to keep safe and not harm …show more content…
Some happen to follow and commit crimes, they believe in monkey see monkey do. This is unjust because there are adults that commit crimes and are being punished for it yet the sixteen and seventeen year olds who commit the same crime and don't get the same consequence. This sometimes results in the children not learning their lesson and later going on and behaving the same way. According to Jennifer Jenkins from the article “On Punishment and teen Killers” she states, “16 or 17 year old is capable of forming such requisite criminal intent”. All teenagers are knowledgeable enough to understand right from wrong. She also states, “If brain development would be the reason, then teens would kill at roughly the same rates all over the world. They do not.” therefore the brain development isn't fully the reason of people's
He essentially analyzes the idea that teenagers don't fully develop until they become adults. In the article Thomson states, “Even though teens are experiencing a wildfire of tissue loss in their brains, that does not remove their accountability”. All teenagers are aware of their actions, but some happen to ignore the consequences. They do not believe in the aftermath of occasions. I understand that some parts of the brain don't develop as quickly , Thompson mentions, “...finding that a massive loss of brain tissue occurs in the teen years”(89).for their actions. This does not justify the actions of the teen agers they are old enough to be accountable for their actions. Some teenagers believe that it is okay to commit crimes, but they don't realize how important it is for them to keep safe and not harm …show more content…
Some happen to follow and commit crimes, they believe in monkey see monkey do. This is unjust because there are adults that commit crimes and are being punished for it yet the sixteen and seventeen year olds who commit the same crime and don't get the same consequence. This sometimes results in the children not learning their lesson and later going on and behaving the same way. According to Jennifer Jenkins from the article “On Punishment and teen Killers” she states, “16 or 17 year old is capable of forming such requisite criminal intent”. All teenagers are knowledgeable enough to understand right from wrong. She also states, “If brain development would be the reason, then teens would kill at roughly the same rates all over the world. They do not.” therefore the brain development isn't fully the reason of people's