Should Juveniles be tried as adults (original) (raw)
Related papers
Springer eBooks, 2009
Should teens who murder be treated as adults? Y outh advocates are seizing on bipartisan interest in criminal justice reform and historically low crime rates to lobby states to lighten sentencing standards for juveniles. They also advocate more efforts to prepare troubled teenagers-even those convicted of the most violent crimes-to be productive members of society. In 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life terms without parole for juveniles were unconstitutional, and this fall it will hear a case on whether to make that decision retroactive for adult prisoners who committed their crimes as juveniles. But prosecutors and victims' rights advocates say youths still must be held accountable for their crimes and judges should be able to refer repeat and violent offenders to adult court. forming a backdrop to the debate is neuroscientific research on adolescent brain development that indicates juveniles' reasoning abilities and impulse control are limited well into their 20s. The research also suggests that they can change their behavior, raising questions about youths' culpability and likelihood of rehabilitation. Twelve-year-old Morgan Geyser, above, and another girl will be tried as adults this fall in the stabbing of a classmate in the so-called Slenderman case in Wisconsin. Both girls reportedly were obsessed with the evil fictional character. The girl they allegedly stabbed survived.
REDUCING THE AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF JUVENILE- A NECESSARY OR UN-NECESSARY STEP?
The increase in number of heinous crimes committed by juveniles between the age group of 16 -18 years as per the report of National Crime Record Bureau along with the Nirbhaya rape case led to the amendment of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 to Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. In this act two major provisions have been introduced-first, putting the children who are above sixteen years of age under trial as adult if found guilty of heinous crime and second, putting the juveniles in adult prison after the juveniles turn twenty-one years old if the sentence term is not over. Along with these two provisions other provisions relating to children in conflict with law under Juvenile Justice Act are under critical scrutiny in this paper. The present juvenile crime scenario after the passage of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is discussed in this paper. Finally some points for improvement in the Act as well as in the juvenile justice system is suggested.
How Should Justice Policy Treat Young Offenders
2017
The justice system in the United States has long recognized that juvenile offenders are not the same as adults, and has tried to incorporate those differences into law and policy. But only in recent decades have behavioral scientists and neuroscientists, along with policymakers, looked rigorously at developmental differences, seeking answers to two overarching questions: Are young offenders, purely by virtue of their immaturity, different from older individuals who commit crimes? And, if they are, how should justice policy take this into account? A growing body of research on adolescent development now confirms that teenagers are indeed inherently different from adults, not only in their behaviors, but also (and of course relatedly) in the ways their brains function. These findings have influenced a series of Supreme Court decisions relating to the treatment of adolescents, and have led legislators and other policymakers across the country to adopt a range of developmentally informe...
New Directions for Juvenile Justice
1978
Over the past twelve years there has been increasing scrutiny of the ways in which society deals with young people, especially those who violate its norms. Calls for comprehensive changes have been issued by the courts, 1 national organizations, 2 child advocacy groups, 3 and national and state commissions. 4 Although changes affecting the treatment of young people in our nation have been recommended in many areas, those relating * Points of view or opinions inthis article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Office ofJuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, or the United States Department of Justice.
Adult Punishment for Juvenile Offenders: Does It Reduce Crime
This chapter discusses the research on the general and specific deterrent effects of transferring juveniles for trial in adult criminal court, identifies gaps in our knowledge base that require further research, discusses the circumstances under which effective deterrence may be achieved, and examines whether there are effective alternatives for achieving deterrence other than adult sanctions for serious juvenile offenders. As a backdrop to this analysis, the chapter first examines the role of public opinion in shaping the get tough policies, and how policy makers have misunderstood and perceived support for these policies.