Mandatory Life Without Parole
Juveniles, or someone under the age of 18, shouldn’t be given a sentence of mandatory life without parole but, they should be given quite a bit of time in prison. Although some may consider it cruel and unusual punishments because of the wording of the 8th Amendment, some juveniles are just natural born killers and deserve to be in prison for the rest of their life. A juvenile committing murder of the 1st degree, breaking the law knowing that what they were doing was wrong should be given large amount of time in prison but not life without parole. I believe by giving this person a large sentence of let’s say 10 to 20 years in prison, would help the families of …show more content…
Especially if that crime was murder. In the article “ On Punishment and Teen Killers” by Jennifer Jenkins, she explains her reasoning for believing that juveniles convicted of murder deserve to receive a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. In the first paragraph of the article she exclaims that “ some people will shun crime even if we do nothing to deter them, while others will seek it out even if we do everything to reform them”. She believes that some people are just wicked and nothing can help them so we need to separate them from the innocent. Jenkins lost her pregnant younger sister and her brother-in-law to teenage murderers, which somewhat alters her point of view on the subject. She thinks that if they can commit the crime then they can definitely do the time. It has been very widely said that teenage brains are not fully developed but she believes that if “ If brain development were the reason, then teens in general would kill at roughly the same rate all over the world. They do not”. Although I do not agree with this statement mainly because it falls in the same category as the saying if everyone jumped off a bridge would you jump too. Basically saying that if this teen began murdering people does that mean all teens are going to begin killing others? No, teens can think for themselves but …show more content…
Do we take in the age of the criminal into account, how they were raised, their mental state? So many things come into effect of what makes a murderer. Today juveniles around the world are being sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after being convicted guilty of murder. Paul Thompson wrote an article called “ Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” where he discusses a controversial topic on sending teenage killers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He talks about a student named Nathaniel Brazill. Nathaniel Brazill is a student who killed his teacher. When Brazill committed this crime he was 13 year old. One day Nathaniel Brazill was upset with on of his favorite teachers Mr. Barry Grunow, resulting in Brazil going home, grabbing his father's gun and going back to school where he shot Mr. Grunow in the face. This all happened because his teacher would not let Nathaniel say goodbye to his girlfriend after school. So, out of anger, Nathaniel Brazill shot his favorite teacher killing him. This is a perfect example of a momentary lapse of judgment and shows the impulsiveness teenagers possess. Is it really Nathaniel Brazill’s fault for this crime being committed? He was only 13 years old, in all reality he was very far from the mental stage of development for him to really decipher
Juveniles, or someone under the age of 18, shouldn’t be given a sentence of mandatory life without parole but, they should be given quite a bit of time in prison. Although some may consider it cruel and unusual punishments because of the wording of the 8th Amendment, some juveniles are just natural born killers and deserve to be in prison for the rest of their life. A juvenile committing murder of the 1st degree, breaking the law knowing that what they were doing was wrong should be given large amount of time in prison but not life without parole. I believe by giving this person a large sentence of let’s say 10 to 20 years in prison, would help the families of …show more content…
Especially if that crime was murder. In the article “ On Punishment and Teen Killers” by Jennifer Jenkins, she explains her reasoning for believing that juveniles convicted of murder deserve to receive a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. In the first paragraph of the article she exclaims that “ some people will shun crime even if we do nothing to deter them, while others will seek it out even if we do everything to reform them”. She believes that some people are just wicked and nothing can help them so we need to separate them from the innocent. Jenkins lost her pregnant younger sister and her brother-in-law to teenage murderers, which somewhat alters her point of view on the subject. She thinks that if they can commit the crime then they can definitely do the time. It has been very widely said that teenage brains are not fully developed but she believes that if “ If brain development were the reason, then teens in general would kill at roughly the same rate all over the world. They do not”. Although I do not agree with this statement mainly because it falls in the same category as the saying if everyone jumped off a bridge would you jump too. Basically saying that if this teen began murdering people does that mean all teens are going to begin killing others? No, teens can think for themselves but …show more content…
Do we take in the age of the criminal into account, how they were raised, their mental state? So many things come into effect of what makes a murderer. Today juveniles around the world are being sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after being convicted guilty of murder. Paul Thompson wrote an article called “ Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” where he discusses a controversial topic on sending teenage killers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He talks about a student named Nathaniel Brazill. Nathaniel Brazill is a student who killed his teacher. When Brazill committed this crime he was 13 year old. One day Nathaniel Brazill was upset with on of his favorite teachers Mr. Barry Grunow, resulting in Brazil going home, grabbing his father's gun and going back to school where he shot Mr. Grunow in the face. This all happened because his teacher would not let Nathaniel say goodbye to his girlfriend after school. So, out of anger, Nathaniel Brazill shot his favorite teacher killing him. This is a perfect example of a momentary lapse of judgment and shows the impulsiveness teenagers possess. Is it really Nathaniel Brazill’s fault for this crime being committed? He was only 13 years old, in all reality he was very far from the mental stage of development for him to really decipher