Retribution and Culpability
Americans
today tend to believe that rehabilitation/programs for juvenile delinquents
prevent crime outbreaks. However, over shows
54 per cent of 4938 juveniles who came into contact with police in 1999 were
convicted again within 10 years
(Wallace pg. 1). Although I agree
with juvenile rehabilitation up to a point, I cannot accept the overall
conclusion of a teenagers potentially getting away with a violent crime with
only a slap on the wrist. So what should be done about it? Both
sides of the argument on juvenile crime desire to keep violent offenders off the
street. Idealists argue for rehabilitation alone to salvage the integrity of the
juvenile’s life, when the logical decision is for teenagers to be treated as
adults more often for violent crimes in order to promote retribution and
culpability for one’s actions.
In discussions of juvenile crime, one controversial issue has been the
potential consequences of being tried as an adult. On the one hand, many
idealists argue that the damage is too great. On the other hand, law enforcement
officials contend that the victim should come before the perpetrator. Others
even maintain that juveniles should be tried as adults as long as they are not
sentenced for life. My own view is that teenagers should be treated as adult for
violent crimes due to their knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. In
cognitive development, teenagers are in Piaget’s formal operational stage (Sch.
Pg. 4). During this stage there is “codification of rules” or the full awareness
of what is moral and immoral (Sch. Pg.4). Once this stage has been reached
hypothetical and abstract thinking have been developed, as well as a sense of
what is right and wrong. Barring mental illness or extenuating circumstances,
by the age of 13 most kids are fully aware that murdering someone is illegal,
that beating someone over the head with a metal baseball bat is wrong, that
even if they want too, they should not rob a bank. It does not take being a
full-fledged adult to understand that. Former attorney general of California,
and other law enforcement officials contend that juvenile crime overall between
the 90s and now has actually been fairly steady (West pg. 2). The
90s was the time period where activists for a juvenile detention center as
opposed to a form of jail or other juvenile oriented programs really started to
take flight. But if these programs were truly successful, then would there not
be a lower recidivism rate? Surely, there should be less juvenile crime repeat
offenders if this was true. Surely, the average for number of reconvictions for
juvenile offenders should not be 4 (Wallace pg. 1)?
By
focusing on the juveniles who have committed the crime, pro-juvenile system
advocates overlook the deeper problem of repeat offenders abusing and taking
advantage of the juvenile criminal system. When a teenager mugs a little old
lady on the street, takes her purse, and murders her, it does not stay as simple
as the advocacy may make it seem. The juvenile’s life is not the only one ruined
from this point on. That old lady had a family, maybe even grandchildren, who a
couple of days after would be sitting at a funeral wondering what happened of
their beloved grandmother who snuck them chocolate chip cookies. This juvenile,
under the present system, has the opportunity to go into a lenient juvenile
system and would be released before they were 25 years old. As
for a while, the maximum sentence for moset juveniles was either 2 years or for
incredibly severe crimes, they would be released at 25 years old (Lemov Pg. 1
and 2).Although I grant that we as a nation should strive to be humane with our
treatment of juveniles, I still maintain that we as a nation should put our
victims over the ones that have hurt them. It’s possible that the juvenile in
question rehabilitation was unsuccessful and they go on to hurt and rob other
grandmothers, fathers, children, and mothers. This is an unfortunate reality as
juveniles accounted for 16 percent of all violent crimes in the year 2007(
Puzz. Pg.1). There is also a chance that the juvenile never commits another
crime. But, where is the justice? A few years in a juvenile detention center,
which many consider to be only a slap on the wrist, is hardly the equivalent of
human lives ruined by one’s actions. I repeat, where is the justice? Where is
the retribution that the families of the victims involved seek? If these
juveniles were tried as adults, they would receive punishments that fit the
crime. If they committed assault, they’d receive proper punishment. If they took
an innocent life, they would be sent to jail.
Justice and human rights were the very foundation of the American
Government during its formation during the Revolutionary War; it was what our
founding fathers fought for. Everyone had the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness, and anyone who tried to take that away would be rightfully
punished. Proponents of the
juvenile system are right to argue that there are issues within the adult system
that need to be worked out. But they exaggerate when they claim that trying
teenagers as adults would be a form of cruel and unusual punishment. As it is
now, many juveniles tried as adults are still given more lenient sentences than
adults as well as some cases being turned back into the juvenile system’s care
by the National District Attorneys Association ( Back. Pg. 2) While it is true,
that at one point in history juveniles could be sentenced to life in prison, it
does not necessarily follow that juveniles are being subjected to a violation of
the 8th amendment, as they are often placed into intermediary
facilities until they are an adult, even after being tried as one (Lemov pg. 1
and 2). In fact, in the majority of states, the state supreme courts have
outlawed juveniles even being sentenced for life or for the death penalty,
making unfair punishment a nullified concern.
Opponents of treating juveniles as adults after the committing of a
violent crime claim that treating juveniles as adults hurts their life to a
degree, but we don’t need them to tell us that. Anyone familiar with the
enforcement of laws and background checks has long known that criminals will
have hard life afterwards, be they 17 or 66. Opponents argue that this harsh
change in quality of life is unjust due to a juvenile’s tender age (Elias pg.
2). However, this is the price one must pay when they commit a heinous and
violent crime. Proponents of the juvenile system are right to argue that there
are differences that need to be accounted for between juveniles and adults,
there is a difference in brain functionality. But they exaggerate when they
claim the overall innocence and naiveté purity of non-adults. My position is not
arguing for a kid who got caught smoking pot to be tried as an adult, or a kid
who stole a baseball bat from the local store to be thrown into an adult jail. I
argue for murderers, rapists, violent robbers and muggers to be treated as any
other of that horrific breed, as an adult in the criminal justice system to
avoid a potential slap on the wrist. On the one hand, I agree with my opponents
that there are indeed issues and technicalities that need to be worked out for a
much more large scale operation of treating juveniles as adults. Jail situations
need to be ironed out, justice needs to be insured ,as well as avoiding too
cruel punishment. But, on other hand, I still insist that that punishment needs
to be there, that culpability, that retribution for the victims that the United
States as a nation strives to protect. Is it worth the potential rise in crime
for violent juveniles to avoid jail time? Or is it better for one to be faced
with retribution for one’s actions and for victims to be avenged with the
prevailing of justice? A
potential compromise may be in the best interest for the foreseeable future, but
until that compromise comes more teenagers should be treated as adults in the
criminal justice system.
Works
Cited Page
Backstrom,
James C. "Tough Juvenile Justice Policies Reduce Crime by Holding Juveniles
Accountable." Juvenile Crime. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press,
2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "America's Juvenile Justice System Is Not
Broken." Www.co.dakota.mn.us. 2007. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Feb.
2013.
Elias, Marilyn. "Is Adult Prison Best
for Juveniles?." USA TODAY. Sept. 21 2006: N.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 20
Feb 2013.
Puzzanchera,
Charles. "Juvenile Arrests 2007." Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Apr. 2009:
1-12. SIRS Government Reporter. Web. 05 Mar
2013.
Schumaker, Richard. "Jean Piaget: A
Foundational Thinker." UNESCO Courier (United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization). Nov. 1996: 48-50. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22
Feb 2013.
Wallace,
Natasha, and Geesche Jacobsen. "Children Reoffend As System Goes Soft."
Sydney Morning Herald. 28 Apr 2012: 1. SIRS Issues Researcher.
Web. 05 Mar 2013.
West, Tony. "Acting Associated Attorney
General Tony West Speaks at the Youth..." Department of Justice Press Release.
04 Apr 2012: N.p. SIRS Government Reporter. Web. 13 Feb
2013.
Lemov, Penelope. "The Assault on Juvenile Justice." Governing.
Dec. 1994: 26-31. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22 Feb
2013.
today tend to believe that rehabilitation/programs for juvenile delinquents
prevent crime outbreaks. However, over shows
54 per cent of 4938 juveniles who came into contact with police in 1999 were
convicted again within 10 years
(Wallace pg. 1). Although I agree
with juvenile rehabilitation up to a point, I cannot accept the overall
conclusion of a teenagers potentially getting away with a violent crime with
only a slap on the wrist. So what should be done about it? Both
sides of the argument on juvenile crime desire to keep violent offenders off the
street. Idealists argue for rehabilitation alone to salvage the integrity of the
juvenile’s life, when the logical decision is for teenagers to be treated as
adults more often for violent crimes in order to promote retribution and
culpability for one’s actions.
In discussions of juvenile crime, one controversial issue has been the
potential consequences of being tried as an adult. On the one hand, many
idealists argue that the damage is too great. On the other hand, law enforcement
officials contend that the victim should come before the perpetrator. Others
even maintain that juveniles should be tried as adults as long as they are not
sentenced for life. My own view is that teenagers should be treated as adult for
violent crimes due to their knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. In
cognitive development, teenagers are in Piaget’s formal operational stage (Sch.
Pg. 4). During this stage there is “codification of rules” or the full awareness
of what is moral and immoral (Sch. Pg.4). Once this stage has been reached
hypothetical and abstract thinking have been developed, as well as a sense of
what is right and wrong. Barring mental illness or extenuating circumstances,
by the age of 13 most kids are fully aware that murdering someone is illegal,
that beating someone over the head with a metal baseball bat is wrong, that
even if they want too, they should not rob a bank. It does not take being a
full-fledged adult to understand that. Former attorney general of California,
and other law enforcement officials contend that juvenile crime overall between
the 90s and now has actually been fairly steady (West pg. 2). The
90s was the time period where activists for a juvenile detention center as
opposed to a form of jail or other juvenile oriented programs really started to
take flight. But if these programs were truly successful, then would there not
be a lower recidivism rate? Surely, there should be less juvenile crime repeat
offenders if this was true. Surely, the average for number of reconvictions for
juvenile offenders should not be 4 (Wallace pg. 1)?
By
focusing on the juveniles who have committed the crime, pro-juvenile system
advocates overlook the deeper problem of repeat offenders abusing and taking
advantage of the juvenile criminal system. When a teenager mugs a little old
lady on the street, takes her purse, and murders her, it does not stay as simple
as the advocacy may make it seem. The juvenile’s life is not the only one ruined
from this point on. That old lady had a family, maybe even grandchildren, who a
couple of days after would be sitting at a funeral wondering what happened of
their beloved grandmother who snuck them chocolate chip cookies. This juvenile,
under the present system, has the opportunity to go into a lenient juvenile
system and would be released before they were 25 years old. As
for a while, the maximum sentence for moset juveniles was either 2 years or for
incredibly severe crimes, they would be released at 25 years old (Lemov Pg. 1
and 2).Although I grant that we as a nation should strive to be humane with our
treatment of juveniles, I still maintain that we as a nation should put our
victims over the ones that have hurt them. It’s possible that the juvenile in
question rehabilitation was unsuccessful and they go on to hurt and rob other
grandmothers, fathers, children, and mothers. This is an unfortunate reality as
juveniles accounted for 16 percent of all violent crimes in the year 2007(
Puzz. Pg.1). There is also a chance that the juvenile never commits another
crime. But, where is the justice? A few years in a juvenile detention center,
which many consider to be only a slap on the wrist, is hardly the equivalent of
human lives ruined by one’s actions. I repeat, where is the justice? Where is
the retribution that the families of the victims involved seek? If these
juveniles were tried as adults, they would receive punishments that fit the
crime. If they committed assault, they’d receive proper punishment. If they took
an innocent life, they would be sent to jail.
Justice and human rights were the very foundation of the American
Government during its formation during the Revolutionary War; it was what our
founding fathers fought for. Everyone had the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness, and anyone who tried to take that away would be rightfully
punished. Proponents of the
juvenile system are right to argue that there are issues within the adult system
that need to be worked out. But they exaggerate when they claim that trying
teenagers as adults would be a form of cruel and unusual punishment. As it is
now, many juveniles tried as adults are still given more lenient sentences than
adults as well as some cases being turned back into the juvenile system’s care
by the National District Attorneys Association ( Back. Pg. 2) While it is true,
that at one point in history juveniles could be sentenced to life in prison, it
does not necessarily follow that juveniles are being subjected to a violation of
the 8th amendment, as they are often placed into intermediary
facilities until they are an adult, even after being tried as one (Lemov pg. 1
and 2). In fact, in the majority of states, the state supreme courts have
outlawed juveniles even being sentenced for life or for the death penalty,
making unfair punishment a nullified concern.
Opponents of treating juveniles as adults after the committing of a
violent crime claim that treating juveniles as adults hurts their life to a
degree, but we don’t need them to tell us that. Anyone familiar with the
enforcement of laws and background checks has long known that criminals will
have hard life afterwards, be they 17 or 66. Opponents argue that this harsh
change in quality of life is unjust due to a juvenile’s tender age (Elias pg.
2). However, this is the price one must pay when they commit a heinous and
violent crime. Proponents of the juvenile system are right to argue that there
are differences that need to be accounted for between juveniles and adults,
there is a difference in brain functionality. But they exaggerate when they
claim the overall innocence and naiveté purity of non-adults. My position is not
arguing for a kid who got caught smoking pot to be tried as an adult, or a kid
who stole a baseball bat from the local store to be thrown into an adult jail. I
argue for murderers, rapists, violent robbers and muggers to be treated as any
other of that horrific breed, as an adult in the criminal justice system to
avoid a potential slap on the wrist. On the one hand, I agree with my opponents
that there are indeed issues and technicalities that need to be worked out for a
much more large scale operation of treating juveniles as adults. Jail situations
need to be ironed out, justice needs to be insured ,as well as avoiding too
cruel punishment. But, on other hand, I still insist that that punishment needs
to be there, that culpability, that retribution for the victims that the United
States as a nation strives to protect. Is it worth the potential rise in crime
for violent juveniles to avoid jail time? Or is it better for one to be faced
with retribution for one’s actions and for victims to be avenged with the
prevailing of justice? A
potential compromise may be in the best interest for the foreseeable future, but
until that compromise comes more teenagers should be treated as adults in the
criminal justice system.
Works
Cited Page
Backstrom,
James C. "Tough Juvenile Justice Policies Reduce Crime by Holding Juveniles
Accountable." Juvenile Crime. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press,
2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "America's Juvenile Justice System Is Not
Broken." Www.co.dakota.mn.us. 2007. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Feb.
2013.
Elias, Marilyn. "Is Adult Prison Best
for Juveniles?." USA TODAY. Sept. 21 2006: N.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 20
Feb 2013.
Puzzanchera,
Charles. "Juvenile Arrests 2007." Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Apr. 2009:
1-12. SIRS Government Reporter. Web. 05 Mar
2013.
Schumaker, Richard. "Jean Piaget: A
Foundational Thinker." UNESCO Courier (United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization). Nov. 1996: 48-50. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22
Feb 2013.
Wallace,
Natasha, and Geesche Jacobsen. "Children Reoffend As System Goes Soft."
Sydney Morning Herald. 28 Apr 2012: 1. SIRS Issues Researcher.
Web. 05 Mar 2013.
West, Tony. "Acting Associated Attorney
General Tony West Speaks at the Youth..." Department of Justice Press Release.
04 Apr 2012: N.p. SIRS Government Reporter. Web. 13 Feb
2013.
Lemov, Penelope. "The Assault on Juvenile Justice." Governing.
Dec. 1994: 26-31. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22 Feb
2013.