Elizabeth I Believed Wholeheartedly That Adolescents Who Com

Elizabethi Believe Whole Heartedly That Adolescent Who Commit Crimes

Elizabeth, I believe wholeheartedly that adolescents who commit crimes should be tried as adults. If an adolescent were to murder someone, then the punishment should be life imprisonment. Laws are created to protect society, not to be ignored. If a young person is involved in selling drugs on the street, they should face jail time; a mere slap on the wrist or probation is insufficient. Such serious offenses warrant incarceration to serve justice and deter future crimes.

Many people argue that adolescents are still children and should be treated differently under the law. However, I believe adolescents are aware enough of their actions to understand right from wrong. They know that serious crimes can destroy lives. This perspective is reinforced by programs like the A&E show Scared Straight, which exposes at-risk youth to the realities of prison life. In these programs, inmates describe their experiences, aiming to dissuade young offenders from continuing down a criminal path. Such initiatives demonstrate that consequences are serious and unavoidable, regardless of age.

It is crucial that more states and countries adopt strict measures to address juvenile crime without hesitation. No matter a young person's social standing—whether they are the quarterback of a football team or the president of a student council—they must be held accountable for their actions. The phrase, "Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time," underscores the importance of responsibility and punishment for criminal behavior.

Research indicates that adolescent decision-making is heavily influenced by peers and emotional states (Blume & Zembar, 2007). While I am unsure whether all juveniles who commit serious crimes should be automatically tried as adults, I firmly believe they should be held accountable. Adolescents often act impulsively, without fully contemplating the consequences of their actions. However, some crimes are premeditated, indicating a deliberate choice made with ample planning and thought.

Determining whether a juvenile acted impulsively or with premeditation is essential in deciding whether they should face adult punishment. Factors such as involvement in gangs, substance abuse, or coercion may influence their actions. For instance, a youth involved in drug trafficking may do so because of environmental pressures or lack of alternatives, while another may commit violence due to personal trauma or abuse.

Before deciding to try a juvenile as an adult, comprehensive evaluations should be conducted to understand the motives and circumstances behind the crime. Reflecting on one's own teenage years, it becomes evident that adolescence is marked by impulsiveness, emotional upheavals, and susceptibility to peer influence. These factors should be carefully considered in judicial decisions.

In conclusion, while adolescents possess a degree of awareness about their actions, their decision-making is often impaired by emotional and peer influences. Society must balance accountability with understanding, ensuring that justice is served while recognizing the developmental stages of youth. Implementing fair, case-by-case assessments can help determine the appropriate punishment—whether rehabilitative or punitive—that aligns with the severity and context of the crime committed.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over whether adolescents who commit crimes should be tried as adults is complex and multifaceted. On one hand, there is compelling evidence that young individuals possess sufficient cognitive and moral awareness to be held responsible for their actions. On the other hand, developmental neuroscience suggests that the adolescent brain is still maturing, particularly in regions related to impulse control, decision-making, and risk assessment (Steinberg, 2014). Therefore, a nuanced approach is needed, which considers both individual circumstances and developmental factors.

The legal rationale for trying juveniles as adults often stems from the gravity of their offense. Severe crimes such as murder, kidnapping, or armed robbery are viewed as sufficiently serious to warrant adult punishment because they pose a significant threat to public safety. For example, the landmark Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama (2012) emphasized that mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders violates constitutional protections because it fails to acknowledge their potential for change. Nevertheless, critics argue that such measures ignore the ongoing development of the adolescent brain and amplify the risk of irreversible punishment for minors who could otherwise benefit from rehabilitation programs.

Supporting the enforcement of stringent penalties, some proponents highlight the importance of personal responsibility. Adolescence is a period of heightened emotional volatility and susceptibility to peer influence, which can lead to impulsive or reckless behavior. Blume and Zembar (2007) clarify that decision-making during this period is often driven by emotional reactions rather than rational thought. Consequently, attempting minors as adults can serve both justice and societal safety by removing dangerous individuals from the community.

However, the counterargument emphasizes that not all juvenile offenders are equally culpable. Some act impulsively without fully understanding the consequences, while others are driven by traumatic circumstances, such as exposure to violence, abuse, or involvement in criminal environments like gangs. An assessment that considers these contextual factors is crucial for fair judicial outcomes. For instance, a youth coerced into selling drugs due to economic hardship may lack the agency to make fully informed decisions, whereas a premeditated murder committed with malice requires a different approach.

Moreover, neurological research underscores that the adolescent brain continues to develop into the early twenties, particularly in areas related to self-regulation and foresight (Luna et al., 2010). This biological perspective supports juvenile justice reforms that favor rehabilitative over punitive measures for minors, especially those whose crimes stem from impulsivity or emotional dysregulation. Juvenile justice systems in various jurisdictions increasingly recognize this, emphasizing rehabilitation, education, and mental health support over harsh punishments.

Effective intervention strategies involve a comprehensive evaluation process, including psychological assessments, social background checks, and interviews that explore the motives behind the crime. Courts should weigh these factors alongside legal considerations to determine whether a juvenile’s actions were impulsive or premeditated. This nuanced process ensures that punishment aligns with individual circumstances and developmental capacity, ultimately fostering justice and the possibility of reformation.

In summary, while adolescents are aware enough of their actions to be held accountable, their ongoing brain development and susceptibility to external influences necessitate a balanced approach. Criminal justice policies should incorporate scientific insights about adolescent behavior and emphasize rehabilitative opportunities whenever appropriate. By doing so, society not only enforces justice but also promotes the growth and reintegration of youth who have made mistakes during a pivotal developmental period.

References

• Blume, L. B., & Zembar, M. J. (2007). Middle Childhood to Middle Adolescence Development from ages 8 to 18. Pearson Education.
• Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).
• Luna, B., et al. (2010). Developmental changes in cognitive control and their relation to impulsivity. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(3), 229-245.
• Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Feld, B. C. (2019). Juvenile Justice: An Overview. Criminal Justice Review, 44(1), 4-21.
• Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2016). Risk-Taking in Adolescence: What Changes, and Why? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1394(1), 51–66.
• Grisso, T. (2008). Juveniles' rights and the law: Current issues and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(1), 24–39.
• Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2010). Juvenile justice reform and the challenge of youth violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(4), 317-326.
• Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Juvenile Crime and Justice: Perspectives from the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Oxford University Press.
• Piquero, A. R., et al. (2015). The criminal careers of juvenile offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(4), 493-517.