I don’t agree with the majority of supreme court justices who believe that mandatory life sentences are acceptable. Teens that commit a second degree murder or any other crime should not receive a mandatory sentence of life without parole. They should not receive it because they young teenagers that need a second chance and get their life back together. Most states have banned this kind of punishment and cannot be sentenced to life, that the life punishment is a disproportionate punishment for the young. Showed that the death penalty for juveniles is also cruel and unusual. Twelve states banned the death penalty in all circumstances, and eighteen more banned it for a teenager should not receive a mandatory sentence of life without parole
…show more content…
They shouldn’t expose teens to that kind of environment where there’d be more violence to get them traumatized. Juveniles are constantly being exposed to violence through movies, television, and video games. Young children, those age thirteen and under, and even the ones older than thirteen may find it natural. These teenagers still need a guidance in life, but no longer need someone to hold their hand. They have reached a level of maturity that allows them to think and act for themselves. They are at an age where they can make up their own minds and decide for a juvenile offender should be tried according to his crime. A fourteen year old has the mental capacity to determine right from wrong, even when it comes to violent crimes. However if he or she has committed an adult crime, or violent crime, a harsher punishment is needed but not as far as to say that they shall go to jail for life. First, before giving the teen a punishment the teen should demonstrate that he is willing to get help. Well said in the article “Juveniles don’t deserve a life sentences”, “the court has previously recognized that children should not be condemned to die in prison without being given a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation”. Giving teens a second chance could be a better way for them to get help instead of punishing them for
They shouldn’t expose teens to that kind of environment where there’d be more violence to get them traumatized. Juveniles are constantly being exposed to violence through movies, television, and video games. Young children, those age thirteen and under, and even the ones older than thirteen may find it natural. These teenagers still need a guidance in life, but no longer need someone to hold their hand. They have reached a level of maturity that allows them to think and act for themselves. They are at an age where they can make up their own minds and decide for a juvenile offender should be tried according to his crime. A fourteen year old has the mental capacity to determine right from wrong, even when it comes to violent crimes. However if he or she has committed an adult crime, or violent crime, a harsher punishment is needed but not as far as to say that they shall go to jail for life. First, before giving the teen a punishment the teen should demonstrate that he is willing to get help. Well said in the article “Juveniles don’t deserve a life sentences”, “the court has previously recognized that children should not be condemned to die in prison without being given a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation”. Giving teens a second chance could be a better way for them to get help instead of punishing them for