Imagine a scenario where two family members or friends are killed. Justice should be given, correct? Now imagine it was a 15-year-old boy who committed the crime. Should he receive lax sentencing due to his age?, although he knew exactly what he was doing. The answer is emphatically no. He should be tried as an adult because he made an adult decision by killing. Juveniles who commit violent crimes such as rape, murder or arson should be tried as an adult.
Courts focus on age, not the crime now a days. In 2006 a 12-year-old girl who killed her whole family due to them not liking her boyfriend, was only given ten years (Flow 2016). Many would argue that she just did not understand due to her age and mental stability. Another case where a …show more content…
Juveniles have the same right as an adult when it comes to getting arrested. They get read there rights, and they get a lawyer. If juveniles have those same rights why should they not get a trial by jury? As stated earlier, juveniles do receive an attorney but with out a trial all there really are is bills and wasted time. A trial by jury could also help incase of a wrongful charge. The case is usually handled by the JJS (Juvenile Justice System). There are many steps to a case, normally it is decided by the judge, family and friends. But this would be biased due to the fact that family and friends would not want to see their loved one sent away so it could subconsciously sway there opinion. The jury should get to make the decision on whether or not the defendant is guilty or not. But due to age being a problem for many people the jury should not get to know the age. If the juvenile can do the "adult" crime they should get tried as an adult and do the adult time. In a case back in 1999 a juvenile by the name of Joey was falsely prosecuted, but with the help of a trial by jury he was sent home and the real criminal was caught (Drizin "Juveniles"). If by chance the juvenile is mentally incapable of understanding what he or she did than they should get treated how any one else would.
In conclusion, juveniles that commit rape, murder, and or arson should be tried as adults. States that have put juveniles on adult trials for certain
Courts focus on age, not the crime now a days. In 2006 a 12-year-old girl who killed her whole family due to them not liking her boyfriend, was only given ten years (Flow 2016). Many would argue that she just did not understand due to her age and mental stability. Another case where a …show more content…
Juveniles have the same right as an adult when it comes to getting arrested. They get read there rights, and they get a lawyer. If juveniles have those same rights why should they not get a trial by jury? As stated earlier, juveniles do receive an attorney but with out a trial all there really are is bills and wasted time. A trial by jury could also help incase of a wrongful charge. The case is usually handled by the JJS (Juvenile Justice System). There are many steps to a case, normally it is decided by the judge, family and friends. But this would be biased due to the fact that family and friends would not want to see their loved one sent away so it could subconsciously sway there opinion. The jury should get to make the decision on whether or not the defendant is guilty or not. But due to age being a problem for many people the jury should not get to know the age. If the juvenile can do the "adult" crime they should get tried as an adult and do the adult time. In a case back in 1999 a juvenile by the name of Joey was falsely prosecuted, but with the help of a trial by jury he was sent home and the real criminal was caught (Drizin "Juveniles"). If by chance the juvenile is mentally incapable of understanding what he or she did than they should get treated how any one else would.
In conclusion, juveniles that commit rape, murder, and or arson should be tried as adults. States that have put juveniles on adult trials for certain