If they are under the age of 18 the should be tried as juveniles not adults. You have kids 10-17 years old going to jail for life. Kids should be given a chance to make a better life for themselves because they are so young and have their whole life ahead of them. Putting them in jail for life does nothing to help them.
2007-08-09 14:36:54 · 10 answers · asked by LSU 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I will explain as thoroughly as possible. But I warn you, it is quite wordy :-)
Your question is understandable, and the problem lies in your misunderstanding of the term "adult court". The thing is, there actually is no legal concept of adulthood in the U.S. You can't get married until you're 14 (in New York), you can't drive a car until you're 16, you can't vote or join the army until you're 18, you can't drink until you're 21, you can't rent a car until you're 25, and so on. At what age do you define adulthood? There is really no such thing anymore, at least not according to the government.
"Adult court" is really just a confusing shorthand term used by the media and the general public and it would be more accurately referred to as a "regular court", which is where every suspect goes to by default unless there is some special exception (i.e. if the suspect is mentally disabled, or if a suspect committed a crime out of impulse and ignorance and is too young and immature to fully understand the nature and consequences of his actions). And when people say that a person is "tried as an adult", all that means is that he has been judged to be mature and competent enough to undergo a regular trial in the regular court system.
In most cases, the majority of juveniles are not sent to a regular court (where criminals are punished mainly with incarceration, fines, or even the death penalty) but are sent to a court where the sentence would consist of restitution, special education programs, state monitoring, or some other gentler form of rehabilitation. But if a juvenile commits a crime that is extremely heinous, completely premeditated, and he understood perfectly well what he was doing, then there is no reason not to try him under the regular court system regardless of his age. The harsh reality is that there are some kids who are just downright bad and a danger to others, who know what they did was wrong and don't care, and are past the point of simple rehabilitation. They must face the full force of the law to keep them away from the public.
2007-08-09 19:12:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i have mixed feelings. yes they are kids, but how much more does an 18 year old know, they are still in high school. where should the cutoff age be. i think 14 and younger should not be tried as adilts. if a 16 year old is mature enough to commit the crime, they should do the time. i am not a fan of jail or harsh punishments, i just know some 15 year old more mature than 19 year old, and some 19 year olds not as mature as 15 year olds. they should look at the person, the crime and how mature they are.
2007-08-09 21:49:37 · answer #2 · answered by wigglesmom 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When a kid is seventeen and he kills someone, the longest term he can be sentenced for, as a juvenile, is only until he is 21, a grand four years. A life should be worth more, and so when older kids commit vicious crimes, they are tried as adults so as to make the sentences longer.
2007-08-09 21:41:11 · answer #3 · answered by manic.fruit 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
So, when a sixteen year old rapes and murders your daughter, he should go to juvie for two years, and be thrown right back out on the street because "he was just a kid"? He should get a slap on the wrist instead of being punished appropriately for his crime? I don't think so. If a child commits an adult crime, he should be tried accordingly.
2007-08-09 21:47:35 · answer #4 · answered by spunk113 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It depends how vicious a crime they do.
If you have a 16 year old that rapes and executes someone, if you try him as a juvi, I think he can get out when he's 18 or 21, which means not much punishment.
I think after a kid is 14, he knows what he's doing and if he does something really cruel, I have absolutely NO mercy.
2007-08-09 21:52:55 · answer #5 · answered by topink 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You want to send a 17 year old murderer to Juvenile detention until he's 21? Yeah, that'll learn him! If they want to do an adult crime, then they can pay with adult time.
2007-08-09 21:48:30 · answer #6 · answered by cassandra_sd 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They're tried as adults because something else has failed...their parents, the system, or previous arrests.
Those that willfully kill another human being no matter what their age should never see the light of day again. This does not include accidents, only willful acts,
2007-08-09 21:42:08 · answer #7 · answered by rjrmpk 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Are you somehow under the impression that incarceration exists for the benefit of the criminal? No, my friend. We put them away for OUR benefit, to protect the innocent from the depraved. Even if that criminal happens to be unusually young.
2007-08-09 21:53:10 · answer #8 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Look at the types of crimes these kids are doing. How about murder?
2007-08-09 21:52:59 · answer #9 · answered by Gary 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because their parents accept NO responsibility .... somebody has to.
2007-08-09 21:39:48 · answer #10 · answered by ValleyR 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋