Should young adolescents be given a second chance after committing a heinous crime? Meaning, should teens who commit first or second degree murder receive a mandatory sentence of life without parole? No, I believe that teens should be given another chance depending on their case. The reason is because teens have underdeveloped brains compared to adults, according to experts. Another reason is because teens are also able to rehabilitate if given the chance to and if they really wanted to. Lastly, the majority of the Supreme Court believe that giving teens a life sentence without parole is a violation of their eighth amendment.
According to the article, “Juveniles Don't Deserve Life Sentences” written by Gail Garinger, she states, “ Young people …show more content…
For example, in the ERWC activity packet, it states that most supreme justices believe” Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features”. This means that before sentencing a teen to life without parole you must consider their maturity, age,impetuosity, and home environment in which the teens have no control of. Another thing to consider is that some states are death penalty states and teens should be given another chance be a better person before their life is given away.
Although these points prove on why teens should not be given mandatory life in prison without parole, some still disagree. 4 Supreme court justices believe that teens who planned the crime should do the time regardless because “teens should know right from wrong” However, many believe that even if the teen planned it and doesn't show improvement on their behavior in prison they should not have their sentence reduced or be given parole. In conclusion most teens are capable of becoming a better member of society, it just depends on the resources the state provides them with and how badly they want to
According to the article, “Juveniles Don't Deserve Life Sentences” written by Gail Garinger, she states, “ Young people …show more content…
For example, in the ERWC activity packet, it states that most supreme justices believe” Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features”. This means that before sentencing a teen to life without parole you must consider their maturity, age,impetuosity, and home environment in which the teens have no control of. Another thing to consider is that some states are death penalty states and teens should be given another chance be a better person before their life is given away.
Although these points prove on why teens should not be given mandatory life in prison without parole, some still disagree. 4 Supreme court justices believe that teens who planned the crime should do the time regardless because “teens should know right from wrong” However, many believe that even if the teen planned it and doesn't show improvement on their behavior in prison they should not have their sentence reduced or be given parole. In conclusion most teens are capable of becoming a better member of society, it just depends on the resources the state provides them with and how badly they want to