Introduction
The issue of trying teens who commit crimes has been subject to debate for several years. It is important to note that the criminal behavior is shown by warrants severe punishments or at least being held responsible. The question as to whether the teen should be tried in the courts like adults who commit a similar crime still elicits divergent reaction and opinion. Proponents of leniency on teens argue that they should always be offered a new lease of life to correct their behavior as such change their criminal mannerism (Bechtold et al. 126). However, such statements are a wee bit myopic and insensitive. It is important that every party entangled in a situation is served with justice that matches the degree of the crime they commit. While juveniles are perceived to have a chance to change their approaches to life when given a chance, the flooding of the neighborhoods with potential criminals in the name of juveniles is a great danger to communism. It is essential that certain behavior is not tolerated in the society at all costs. Criminal and violent conduct should often receive a punishment that fits the nature of the offense (Bechtold et al. 126). To a greater extent, there should always be a uniform punishment for any form of violent crime to serve as deterrence to criminal behavior. The teens continue to be tried in courts that often offer them short sentences without taking into account the nature of the offense committed. They are thus released into the society in the hope that their criminal mindset will change for better. In the view of such mild punishment to offenders of crime, it is not a sending any tough message to potential juvenile offenders that committing the crime would be taken toughly by the criminal justice system (Cole et al. 27-39). As a result, they tend to believe that they will only serve a short term in jail thus find solace in criminal manifestation. It is thus important that these teens are subjected to harsh conditions to enable them to understand the full wrath of the law when one engages in atrocities. Regarding the subject, it is important to subject juvenile criminal offenders to adult trial as asserted by the following rationale;
Discussion
First, the severity of punishment is critical in inhibiting criminal behavior .As many humanitarians and human rights activists would say, children hardly have the conscience to commit a crime. However, the fact that a juvenile offender is a criminal is undisputable. The underlying fact behind criminal mannerism is the hard task that many face in attempting to relinquish the behavior. Moreover, the lesser the punishment, the more likely one is to engage in criminal activity. Punishments for committing crime are often meant to serve as an example to potential offenders as well as future offenders. The criminal justice system for trying the adults is often marred with severe consequences especially when one is found to have committed the alleged crime (Cole et al. 27-39). Such punishments have always restrained people from engaging in such like activities for fear of rubbing shoulders with the agony of justice. Taking into consideration the severity of certain punishments attached to particular criminal acts, it is clear that one would always try to keep off being caught in such offenses. By putting lesser punishment on juveniles for crimes similar to the ones committed by the adults, the attention of the juvenile is drawn to the possibility of engaging in such acts with knowledge that they will often get leniency in the justice system. After all, one would feel that they would be imprisoned for sometimes then released to continue with the normal life. Such message is dangerous to the society that does not find pride in atrocities but rather works hard to eliminate every form of criminal manifestation (Humes 67-76). If a juvenile imagined that by committing a particular crime they would be subject to life incarceration just like adults, nobody would dare think of engaging in such acts.
However, the lure of lesser punishments makes it easy to imagine of such acts. As a result, juveniles continue to engage in heinous acts knowing that they will only receive some rehabilitative corrections rather than punishments. According to security experts, curbing criminal behavior often require that particular act is attached to the most severe form of punishment. It will give the offender a second thought before engaging in such crimes. Therefore, it is critical to try juveniles just like their adult counterparts when it comes to criminal behavior. Different groups of people have often argued that do not always have the capacity to understand nature understand the gravity of mistakes they commit (Humes 67-76). Others assert that they still have the chance to make amends for their mistakes. Additionally, some argue that teens do not have knowledge about their limitations when it comes to drugs or substance abuse that has been found to increase criminal manifestation. However, it is myopic to reason in that school of thought as the law bars teens from accessing such substances. Equally, the law prohibits them from using the drugs and as such they are not subject to any form of leniency. As the law asserts, ignorance can never act as a defense to criminal behavior. Assuming that these teens do not have the comprehension of their behavior is thus far-fetched. In a rather rational view, it is imprudent to use double standards for a similar offense. Therefore, there is no reason why juveniles should be accorded honor when they are subject to criminal conduct.
Secondly, it is evident that teens who have committed crimes are often prone to the repeat of their heinous acts. While there is the mild treatment of juvenile criminals in the criminal justice system, their presence on the streets is a threat to security. These teens interact with fellows who had been convicted for committing different crimes in the neighborhoods and the exchange often lead to soliciting of criminal ideas (Reiman et al. 15-28). They further turn to hard criminals who continue to commit every form of atrocities. Why should a first-degree murder have second-degree punishment just because of the offender’s age? To send a strong message to the offenders, the law must be universally applied to people with similar criminal behavior. It is essential to the understanding of criminal mindset to acknowledge that a criminal will hardly quite if the punishment does not match the magnitude of the committed offense. Therefore, it is important to understand that treating juvenile offenders differently will only serve to eliminate the fear of committing a crime. Moreover, adolescents are often old enough thus can understand the narrative of good and bad. Taking into account the philosophical narrative that a juvenile might not have structured model of making right decisions, it is hypocritical to think since committing a crime is not a preserve of the old but rather a decision. What lures one into engaging into criminal manifestation instead of the other is thus a well-thought idea. Despite the age, the magnitude of the crime should always determine the magnitude of the punishment (Reiman et al. 15-28). The law should thus be enacted to erase the narrative of correcting and make every crime attached to a universal punishment. It will make juveniles consider such crimes a no go zone and ultimately behave responsibly.
Thirdly, its punishment for criminal activity would serve as justice to the victims. The lawmakers often tend to forget the pain that the offender inflicted into the victim’s family. Such agonies are hard to wash away taking into account the emotional attachment between family members. The victims only find justice when the offender is punished. However, the reluctance to subject juveniles to severe punishment for offenses would be an injustice to the victims (Schildkraut et al. 358-74). It is unjust to the family when a killer of their loved one is punished for a short time and left to walk back into the neighborhood. Interacting with such person would recreate bad memories that can lead to further crime. It is essential that such people are offered the kind of punishment that serves both the accused and the accuser satisfactorily (Siegel et al. 45-67). Therefore, the victims should always be considered in deciding the punishment to be laid against a particular offender. It is, therefore, important to treat criminals as criminals rather than insert age factor. The effect of crime is non-discriminative regardless of the offender.
Conclusion
In summary, all crimes committed by the juveniles should be treated the same as adults. More heinous crimes in the form of rape and murder should not be subject to debate about the age of the offender. The gravity of such crimes does not make it unnecessary to think about the age of the offender. However, there should be a consideration if the crime is lesser. The victims should thus be accorded justice by giving the offender a deserved punishment. Putting severe punishment on criminal behavior will discourage the offenders from engaging in the criminal acts. Inhibiting criminal behavior will require that the law remains tough and non-discriminative on offenders.
Work Cited
Bechtold, Jordan, and Elizabeth Cauffman. "Tried as an adult, housed as a juvenile: A tale of youth from two courts incarcerated together." Law and human behavior 38.2 (2014): 126.
Cole, George, Christopher Smith, and Christina DeJong. Criminal justice in America. Cengage Learning, 2015. 27-39.
Humes, Edward. No matter how loud I shout: A year in the life of juvenile court. Simon and Schuster, 2015. 67-76.
Reiman, Jeffrey, and Paul Leighton. The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice. Routledge, 2015. 15-28.
Schildkraut, Jaclyn, and Tiffany Cox Hernandez. "Laws that bit the bullet: A review of legislative responses to school shootings." American Journal of Criminal Justice 39.2 (2014): 358-374.
Siegel, Larry, and Brandon Welsh. Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law. Cengage Learning, 2014. 45-67.
