Juvenile crime has been always going on within our country. Juveniles commit crimes every day; whether it’s stealing something non-luxurious from a store or to even be able to end with a life. Those who commit such horrendous actions such as being able to take someone’s life should be sentenced to life in prison or in some cases, death. But the question still stands: what if it is an adolescent who murdered somebody, should they be sentenced to life in prison or even sentenced to walk death row? I believe that juveniles should not receive life in prison but rather an evaluation on their mental health to see why they acted in such a way. A part of their brain obviously has not been fully developed just yet in order to lead them to make them
…show more content…
They are sentenced to life in prison and even the death penalty. But is that what is really best for them? Putting these teenagers in prison for life gives them no chance to change their lives around and learn from what they’ve done. I strongly believe that adolescents should not be sentences as adults but still deserve a huge punishment. Although, the JLC says, that because of the increasable number of youths being prosecuted as adults since the mid-1990s is been questioned with the developmental research confirming the reduced blameworthiness of juveniles as compared to adults because they realize their mistake at some point. Especially when Krikorian, mentions when an experts testimony in many cases is not really taking in mind or related to the case, so then how can you even leave to the hands of that person to take a look at. Even if their guilty or not it’s still good being opened minded it’s expected from the court system anyways. Liptak on the other hand raises the question on whether or not the justice system is literally reliable anymore. And how even though juveniles are likely to “confess to their crimes”, rather than an adult so why still be so harsh and try to trialing them as …show more content…
According to Krikorian, in the article he mentions that “study director Thomas Grisso, a clinical psychologist and psychiatry professor at the University of Massachusetts medical school”, evaluates the issues with age and the maturity are seen within an adolescent. Although certain young teenagers might understand the consequences they will have to face or the judicial proceedings being presented. Grisso indicates that the results that turn out to be still in doubt whether or not young teens have the ability to fully understand and comprehend what will be their punishment of their mistake. Garinger on the other hand informs that “Young people are biologically different from adults. Brain imaging studies reveal that the regions of the adolescent brain responsible for controlling thoughts, actions and emotions are not fully developed”. And even they shouldn’t be held to the same standards when they make mistakes. Because of these reasons Garinger informs that “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 demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” So they can prove that they can might be a better person, the only problem is that their brain is not developed properly just yet.
They are sentenced to life in prison and even the death penalty. But is that what is really best for them? Putting these teenagers in prison for life gives them no chance to change their lives around and learn from what they’ve done. I strongly believe that adolescents should not be sentences as adults but still deserve a huge punishment. Although, the JLC says, that because of the increasable number of youths being prosecuted as adults since the mid-1990s is been questioned with the developmental research confirming the reduced blameworthiness of juveniles as compared to adults because they realize their mistake at some point. Especially when Krikorian, mentions when an experts testimony in many cases is not really taking in mind or related to the case, so then how can you even leave to the hands of that person to take a look at. Even if their guilty or not it’s still good being opened minded it’s expected from the court system anyways. Liptak on the other hand raises the question on whether or not the justice system is literally reliable anymore. And how even though juveniles are likely to “confess to their crimes”, rather than an adult so why still be so harsh and try to trialing them as …show more content…
According to Krikorian, in the article he mentions that “study director Thomas Grisso, a clinical psychologist and psychiatry professor at the University of Massachusetts medical school”, evaluates the issues with age and the maturity are seen within an adolescent. Although certain young teenagers might understand the consequences they will have to face or the judicial proceedings being presented. Grisso indicates that the results that turn out to be still in doubt whether or not young teens have the ability to fully understand and comprehend what will be their punishment of their mistake. Garinger on the other hand informs that “Young people are biologically different from adults. Brain imaging studies reveal that the regions of the adolescent brain responsible for controlling thoughts, actions and emotions are not fully developed”. And even they shouldn’t be held to the same standards when they make mistakes. Because of these reasons Garinger informs that “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 demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” So they can prove that they can might be a better person, the only problem is that their brain is not developed properly just yet.