Adult Crimes Deserve Adult Treatment Thursday, May 21, 1998. In Springfield, Oregon, 15-year old Kip Kink el opened fire in the cafeteria of Thurston High School. Two were killed and 25 others were wounded. Tuesday, March 24, 1998. In Jonesboro, Arkansas, 11-year old Andrew Golden and 13-year old Mitchell Johnson pulled the fire alarm and shot at the students filing out of the school.
Five were killed and ten were wounded. Monday, Dec. 1, 1997. In Paducah, Kentucky, 14-year old Michael Car neal pulled out a pistol and began firing on a student prayer group. Three were killed and five others were wounded. These incidents are only a tiny sample of the school shootings that have been committed by juvniles in the United States.
More shootings have happened in Onalaska, Washington; Johnston, Rhode Island; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; St. Charles, Missouri… the list continues on and on, not to mention Columbine! Lynbrook junior Stephanie Tsai disagrees with this saying, “At the age of 18, teens are allowed to vote because people believe that by that age they can think rationally and sensi bally. Until kids are 18, they cannot be held responsible for their actions.” Let’s examine this age 18 issue more closely… Granted, our or society does give juvniles the right to vote at age 18. However, many states give them the right to drive at age 16 and the right to drink at age 21.
The fact is that declaring an 18 year-old an adult is an arbitrary standard to determine maturity as far as prosecuting crime goes. The juvenile court system was orginally implemented to protect juveniles from the “harsh” adult court, for juvenile criminals were thought to be more mentally “immature” than adults. This may very well be if we were speaking of a 6 year-old. However, 17 year-olds classic as juveniles as well. Are we to say that 17 year-olds are significantly more “immature” and should “not be held responsible for their actions” than that of an adult 18-year old I wonder… Furthermore, if our justice system uses mental incompetency as the reason juveniles have their own separate and more lenient court, why aren’t 40 year-olds with the mind of a 10 year-old prosecuted in the juvenile justice system Are they not mentally “immature” as well An incorrect assumption about this controversial matter is if the juvenile were to be prosecuted in the adult court, he would be condemned with an adult sentence.
The Term Paper on Juvenile Drug Courts Court Treatment Juveniles
JUVENILE DRUG COURTS Drugs and our youth, the numbers are rising. More and more children today are using drugs without their parents knowing. What happens when they get caught It all depends on who caught them. If it is the parents, usually a big punishment. If it is law enforcement they may have to appear in front of drug courts specialized to handle juvenile cases. Sometimes the parents may even ...
The same goes for juvniles. If a 15 year- old were truly mentally immature, the adult justice system would take that fact into account of its decision and ruling. While others may argue that the juvenile justice system has the juvenile’s best interests in mind, basic freedoms such as due process are denied in the juvenile courts. While those prosecuted in adult courts are entitled to a jury, juvenile sentences usually lay in the hands of an individual judge. The simple fact is that fully competent and mature juveniles are fully capable of committing the same crime as a competent adult.
The results of the crime are the same. In burglary, an innocent person was robbed of his possessions. In murder, an innocent person was robbed of his life. As Katrina Ng, Santa Clara University freshman answered, “If they commit the adult crimes, they should pay the adult consequences. It’s not as if they don’t know the difference between right and wrong.” And even in the extreme cases where right and wrong were indistinguishable to the immature juvenile, the adult justice system would be better equipped to prosecute him, allowing for mitigating circumstances and giving due process.
The Essay on Justice, Crime and Ethics
Justice is mainly concerned with the appropriate ordering of persons and things within the society. Thus when one is aggrieved by another person, he or she is supposed to seek justice to be administered on the person who has violated the rights of the other. Thus the person whose rights are violated is not supposed to take law on his hands and punish the person who has violated his rights but is ...
This way, justice is best achieved-on both sides.
