There have been many opinions on juveniles being convicted as adults on the crimes they have committed. When it comes to some of these harsh crimes, who could not punish the individual to the fullest? It does not matter how old a person is because everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. If someone is raised differently and believes it is okay to murder another human, than they cannot just change their mindset. An individual that makes and adult decision should have the same consequences. Some people will argue that age matters because people mature and change. Individuals that would make the decision to kill someone else should be responsible no matter what their age may be. No matter if the juvenile was not in the best home
…show more content…
These are behaviors that cannot be untaught. A lot of the time, when criminals get out of prison or jail they end up back in the prison or jail. There has to be psychological problems and that is something no one just grows out of. Self-control is something an individual has to teach themselves even if they were not taught by a parent or guardian. If a juvenile assumes they can take someone’s life and makes the decision to do something they know is wrong then there is no reason to take it easy on them when being given their time to serve. There are always individuals whom do not believe that juveniles should be tried as adults. In an experiment with mock jurors, “younger defendants were perceived as less accountable and less competent” (Semple and Woody 302). Also in the experiment of Semple and Woody, the defendant’s age did not affect conviction judgements; younger defendants’ were given a shorter sentence than the older defendants’ (302). Even though they see that the person committed the crime they do not want to give the same long term consequences’. Also in Semple and Woody’s study, the severity of the crime was also taking into account for the juvenile offenders (302). “When it came to defendant’s younger than eighteen years old, the mock …show more content…
They have the same choice in making the decision to commit the crime so why would they not get the same amount of time as an adult? If they make adult decisions then they should get the adult consequences. There will always be someone bias in the jury but as they do get convicted of the crime, juveniles still get less time than adults. When the crime is murder, however, juveniles do get sentenced to life without parole depending on the extent. “Difference in responsibility measures indicated that those in the twenty five year old group were significantly more inclined to take responsibility for their own actions and view behaviors in long term” (Bryan-Hancock and Casey 66). This indicates that anyone under twenty five does not take responsibility for their actions. When it comes to being guilty or not guilty not everyone does take responsibility but they still get their punishment. No matter the age of a individual they should be tried as an adult and have to take responsibility for their own actions whether they want to or not. A juvenile could be given a short sentence and/or just probation and have the idea in their head that they can get away with a crime. The next crime they commit can be far worse and result in harming another individual in
These are behaviors that cannot be untaught. A lot of the time, when criminals get out of prison or jail they end up back in the prison or jail. There has to be psychological problems and that is something no one just grows out of. Self-control is something an individual has to teach themselves even if they were not taught by a parent or guardian. If a juvenile assumes they can take someone’s life and makes the decision to do something they know is wrong then there is no reason to take it easy on them when being given their time to serve. There are always individuals whom do not believe that juveniles should be tried as adults. In an experiment with mock jurors, “younger defendants were perceived as less accountable and less competent” (Semple and Woody 302). Also in the experiment of Semple and Woody, the defendant’s age did not affect conviction judgements; younger defendants’ were given a shorter sentence than the older defendants’ (302). Even though they see that the person committed the crime they do not want to give the same long term consequences’. Also in Semple and Woody’s study, the severity of the crime was also taking into account for the juvenile offenders (302). “When it came to defendant’s younger than eighteen years old, the mock …show more content…
They have the same choice in making the decision to commit the crime so why would they not get the same amount of time as an adult? If they make adult decisions then they should get the adult consequences. There will always be someone bias in the jury but as they do get convicted of the crime, juveniles still get less time than adults. When the crime is murder, however, juveniles do get sentenced to life without parole depending on the extent. “Difference in responsibility measures indicated that those in the twenty five year old group were significantly more inclined to take responsibility for their own actions and view behaviors in long term” (Bryan-Hancock and Casey 66). This indicates that anyone under twenty five does not take responsibility for their actions. When it comes to being guilty or not guilty not everyone does take responsibility but they still get their punishment. No matter the age of a individual they should be tried as an adult and have to take responsibility for their own actions whether they want to or not. A juvenile could be given a short sentence and/or just probation and have the idea in their head that they can get away with a crime. The next crime they commit can be far worse and result in harming another individual in