do you think police and judges are too lenient on young offenders?

Answer 1

no

Answer 2

Judges have to look at the issues from several angles.

One group of citizens will always think the judge is being too harsh.

One group will always think the judge is too easy-going in letting the offenders off easy.

Sometimes the decision is made based upon what options are available in the community for working with the young offenders. Do they serve time with adult offenders? Or a juvenile detention center? Or is there alternative community based service (contact www.soros,org to see what a community in the northwest, USA did). Probation? House arrest?

And which of these options has room for - another youth?

Is the young offender a physical risk to the community or to their self?

Personal opinion: I worked for 12 years at a state Dept of Corrections where I talked with a lot of wardens and probation officers. I think the best option - and they probably would not agree with me - is on the 1st offense - divert the youth to community service where they can learn job skills, build up their self- esteem, and contribute to society. Never let somebody walk away from "personal responsibility" - like one of the people wrote about the youth who did not know that hitting somebody with a baseball bat might hurt or kill someone. If they physically hurt someone, then either jail (12 months or less) or prison (> 1 year) time.

Some localities have guidelines that a jugde must follow. And sometimes, a judge gets pi$$ed off with what options they have and issues a ruling to create a public outcry.

Answer 3

Its hard to find a middle of the road "fair treatment".
They are either too hard on young offenders or too lenient, seldom ever doing something to fit the crime.

As indicated - it depends on the nature of the offense. Were they caught smoking pot? spending a year in juvenile hall is not the answer. Did they steal a car? Letting them go and simply doing community service for a couple of weekends certainly does little to put these kind of kids on the straight and narrow.

Once in a while you hear of a judge actually doing what is reasonably right for our youth and the people whom were victimized. It seems like for the most part, judges with the wisdom of Solomon are like rare jewels.

One might note that Juvenile Hall usually turns out criminals if they weren't criminals when they first went in. These kids teach each other how to pick and jimmy locks, how to con adults and the law, how to shoplift and so forth.

Our rehabilitation facilities (including prisons) are not doing their jobs. Sure they train criminals to work - but they do little of nothing to correct the minds to be a part of the answer instead of the problem.

Answer 4

Absolutely - and it's not just the young offenders. I have close contact with the RCMP, and they, and other police officers have just about given up arresting anyone for anything because most of the things they arrest a potential criminal for is tossed out of court thanks to lawyers and judges. It really isn't the police force at fault here - I feel so sorry for these guys that put their lives on the line for what amounts to no punishment to the offender.
We had 2 seniors who were beaten to death with a baseball bat last year, by a 13 and a 16 year old. They got off, because according to their lawyers - "they were too young to realize that hitting someone over the head with a baseball bat 3 times would cause a fatality". The prosecutor faught valiantly, but the judge agreed with the defendant's lawyer. How sick is that.

Answer 5

What ever offense a juvenile commits, should be met by forcing them to pay society back by community service, or they have to get a job and pay back monetary damages to the victim. They also would have to stay in school and finish with a decent grade point average or enroll in a technical institute and graduate, and their parents be held accountable to see that their child complies with everything that the court sets forth. Then if the juvenile commits any other crimes after the rehabilitation program, they automatically go to jail and serve time. As for juveniles that commit murders, that is another story altogether. When a teenager has reached the age of 13 he fully understands the difference between right or wrong and needs to be held accountable for his/her crime, as unfortunately some are cold blooded killers. If a child has been physically, sexually, mentally, or all of them, abused then that certainly should be taken into consideration if a murder is committed.

Answer 6

no, in my opinion, sometimes not hard enough on them. But, I do think that they are way too lenient on celebrities. The hell with them, they break a law, they should fully pay the consequences. Most the time all they get is a slap on the wrist, if that.

Answer 7

I think police officers/judges are way too strict with young offenders. (especially when it comes to the length of imprisonment) You have to remember that the earlier they commit the crime, the more time they have to rehabilitate and possibly change into a better person...locking them up forever is counterproductive.

Answer 8

YES! The death penalty is rarely used when youth violate the law. Why should there be an exception for a youth offender? The young should not be allowed to speed anymore than an adult.

Answer 9

yes ive seen it myself kids get by with murder. my neighbor & her friends stole a car and gas ran 3 states away and were found running from police trying to steal another car and she got probation, when she violated she got sent away for 6 weeks and then was put on house arrest. they dont even check on her and she still does what she wants. i see it all the time kids get by with murder!

Answer 10

sometimes.
certainly not enough is done to help get them working so they don't want to offend.It doesn't help if they grow up to think there will be little or no consequence to mugging someone

Answer 11

Not at all. They can't be judged like adults!