Should judges serve longer sentences for teenage criminals?

Answer 1

Yes they should. All the alternatives have clearly failed. I don't want to hear any more excuses. To say they have nothing to do is rubbish. To say they come from a deprived background is insulting to all those decent people from deprived backgrounds who manage to retain a sense of right and wrong. Its time we got tough on these thugs and made them face up to the consequences of their actions. I would be prepared to give anyone under the age of 16 one chance and no more.

Answer 2

In England, most teenagers are tried in 'youth court '[ by magistrates (lay people) rather than by professional judges.English law seeks to give the youth offender consideration which an adult offender would not get.

Sentencing for young offenders is subject to guidelines laid down by Government and is lenient This concludes the 'official . version that I am obliged to give as I work in the Criminal Justice system, albeit only as a Security Officer.

From my own point of view as a citizen, the sentences are ridiculous. I've seen cases where a parent has been fined £60 when their child has done over £1000 worth of damage.

We have all done daft things when we were teenagers, but they do seem to be running riot these days. Sentencing needs to be stricter, and , I, for one, would not object to the re-intoduction of corporal punishment, not just for the young offenders, but, sometimes, for the parents as well.

Answer 3

Judges are required to condemn a offender for all of the crimes they have been got here across responsible for. on occasion they are going to run the sentence concurrently, meaning that the prisoner is had to serve the longest sentence and the others are being served on the comparable time, or on occasion they could serve them serially, meaning one after the different and that's the reason they are able to function up In concept a offender could have a parole listening to after 50% of their sentence and so in case you quite need somebody to stay in penitentiary they provide them a sentence longer than 50 years (as they could be out after 25 with sturdy habit) Plus its a message to the families that each cry warranted its very own sentence

Answer 4

Are you talking about the sentences a judge could impose on a teen offender? If so, NO! Why? Because in most cases, longer sentences are not effective to reduce the crime rate nor to reduce recidivism. Longer sentences are generally not completed and it is so because of the overcrowding of prisons and jails as they currently are. One needs to look at what kinds of crimes actually result in jail time - right now the prisons and jails are filled with drug manufacturers, dealers and distributors. If we want to incarcerate teens we are asking that teen - when he/she gets out to be more violent and then they really have a bone to pick with those that sent them to jail for relatively minor crimes. They learn how to be a better criminal in a prison where they did not belong in the first place.

Answer 5

It depends largely on the circumstances of the crime and the offender.

In most cases, however, a lengthy sentence is not appropriate as the first step for a teenage criminal.

As most studies show, teenagers are dumb and do stupid things because their brain has not yet caught up with their physical development. They tend to be prone to underestimate risk and consequence. Since you do not want to teach a dumb teenager how to be a good professional criminal, you do not want to send him off to spend a long period of time with professional criminals.

What you do want to do is give them a lesson in the consequence of their actions without ruining there chances of becoming a productive citizen. Thus, unless their behavior shows that they are a substantial danger to other (e.g. serious violent crimes), you want probation with very, very strict conditions including lots of community service and counseling and some very public acknowledgment of wrong-doing that embarrasses them a little. Basically, you want to create a very unpleasant memory of what happens when they break the law while not permanently branding them as convicts and criminals.

The reality is that most first-time offenders do straighten up their lives. The justice system needs to intelligently use its resources to separate these folks from the ones who will become repeat offenders.

Answer 6

Teenage criminals must be given rehabilitation and the chance to change instead of serving sentences in prisons because they still have young minds and could not have known the consequences of committing crimes.

Answer 7

Yes, I am a 15year old teen and totally agree. I think I along with anyone over the age of 12 should get charged as an adult because we know the difference between right and wrong. In other countries 12year olds are working full time jobs. Here in america the kids are getting babied and i believe that the next generation of kids in america will be a lot dummer then the ones in other countries like England, China, India...

Answer 8

Usually its the criminals who serve the sentences.

Answer 9

Judges should not and do not SERVE sentences. Whether they should GIVE longer sentences depends on the crime and the history of the criminal.

Answer 10

Hey Albus
I would say England does have it fare share of Dumb *** kids,
But you Yanks have had them for much longer.
Watch any American cop show.
Alright it only show us the morons.
The problem is civilised societys are farr too civilised.

Kids rasing kids is the problem.

Sorry for going off track, back to the question. Most kids now a days dont have any idea of conciquences because there are none. Especialy in the UK they just get a caution because they are under age.
Bring back a flogging in public.