Texas killed 78 inmates last year, that is more than one a week. They refused to honor the Supreme Court suggestion on a moratorium on killing the mentally impaired. Most of the other states have either repealed or put a moratorium on the death penalty while they review all cases that hinged on DNA and a record number of people have been freed after being wrongfully convicted. Texas is not actively looking at reviewing cases where DNA or circumstantial evidence could free a inmate. Is this fair? I am not advocating freeing those who are guilty and believe that in most cases Life without the possibilityof parole is sufficient. BUT should we take the chance of killing innoncent people rather than admitting there maybe a mistake? The justice system is not set up to kill the innoncent, but instead protect them.
Answer:
The death penalty is there for a reason and I support it. I do think that with new evidence-DNA-you should have a right to appeal your sentence. And I do believe that a lot of poor people don't get the same treatment as those with $ for a good lawyer. On the other hand I have known people that are so evil they do not deserve to live among other humans and when they commit "that" crime they need to know that if they are caught and proven guilty, they are going to die. You don't do a simple murder and get the death sentence, you have to do something heinous. Look at it from the victim's viewpoint instead of the criminals. . .it will give you a whole new viewpoint about who really has the rights and who doesn't.
Death penalty should stay, but only when DNA or several witnesses (like a shooting in public) has been used to prove them guilty. If DNA isn't available, then they should get life. Before an execution, old evidence should be looked at, this should be mandatory.
The guy freed yesterday on DNA results after 20 years in prison is appalling. They should have done these tests to exonerate him many many years ago?
20 years to wait and be cleared by DNA?
I hope he sues for about a half billion dollars..
Texas now has life without parole on the books. It means what it says and spending the rest of ones life behind bars is no picnic.
There are 2 cases - both recent- in which it is highly likely that Texas executed an innocent person. In the case of Cameron Willingham the fire investigation techniques used to convict him of arson/murder are out of date and newer forensics have shown the fire was not arson, but was an accident. Willingham was killed by the state of Texas for a crime that never happened. The other case, that of Carlos de Luna, also in Texas, involved mistaken identification. (2006, Chicago Tribune)
DNA evidence is available in less than 10% of all homicides and it is not a guarantee that another innocent person will not be sent to his death.
Texas plans to execute Scott Panetti who is seriously mentally ill. Texas plans to execute James Lee Clark today. His IQ is 68, that is, he suffers from borderline mental retardation. Now that Texas has life without parole on the books I hope they will rethink whether they want to continue as a death penalty factory.
The justice system is set up to protect the innocent by killing those who in all probability have committed heinous crimes. The recidivism rate for murderers is about 6%. We have to balance the risk of executing an innocent with that of a convicted killer killing someone in the prison system of eventually getting paroled in 25 years and then killing again.
Plus other less relevant but still important factors of sending a message about what society thinks of murder, and hoping to deter others.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Should teens be tried as adults in court?
doing a research paper and it's due tomorow so i needs some good opinions on this subject if u know a website that can help me out a bit do tell.
Should kids the ages of 10-17 be tried as adults in our courts if they commit a murder
Answer:
I do believe that minors who commit major violent crimes, like murder, should indeed be tried in adult court, because the juvenile court system is unable to give out sentences equal to the punishment of the crime. However, I do not feel that a juvenile should be incarcerated among adults until the age of 18. I think that they should be incarcerated at a juvenile facility until the age of 18 and transferred to serve the remaining term in an adult facility. I do not believe in children being sentenced to the death penalty, for any crime. I do think that a minors age should be taken into consideration during sentencing, but the juvenile court system tends to be too lenient towards violent crime, mostly because of sentencing limitations for minors. Until the juvenile court system is reworked to give judges in these cases the ability to set a just punishment, I think it is best to be handed over to the adult courts. For children 12 and under, I think it is better handled through a juvenile court, but depending on the extent of the crime, it may be better handled if the child is charged as an adult. Honestly, the best result is for the allowance of harsher punishments for minors, and then they would not have to be charged as adults. Until that happens, these crimes have to be dealt with now, and that is often only justly done when they are charged as adults.
adult crime=adult time
If they are old enough to make babies then they are about as adult as you can get, and should be held fully responsible for their actions.
would you like to see a 10 years old getting the death sentence ? and his execution ?
If the person is 14 or older, definitely tried as an adult. If you can kill someone at 14, you will probably do it at 24.
I'm not sure what to do about a ten year old. That's awfully young for a life sentence or the death sentence. Yet, I do not have faith in the government to provide the services the child would need.
Should kids the ages of 10-17 be tried as adults in our courts if they commit a murder
Answer:
I do believe that minors who commit major violent crimes, like murder, should indeed be tried in adult court, because the juvenile court system is unable to give out sentences equal to the punishment of the crime. However, I do not feel that a juvenile should be incarcerated among adults until the age of 18. I think that they should be incarcerated at a juvenile facility until the age of 18 and transferred to serve the remaining term in an adult facility. I do not believe in children being sentenced to the death penalty, for any crime. I do think that a minors age should be taken into consideration during sentencing, but the juvenile court system tends to be too lenient towards violent crime, mostly because of sentencing limitations for minors. Until the juvenile court system is reworked to give judges in these cases the ability to set a just punishment, I think it is best to be handed over to the adult courts. For children 12 and under, I think it is better handled through a juvenile court, but depending on the extent of the crime, it may be better handled if the child is charged as an adult. Honestly, the best result is for the allowance of harsher punishments for minors, and then they would not have to be charged as adults. Until that happens, these crimes have to be dealt with now, and that is often only justly done when they are charged as adults.
adult crime=adult time
If they are old enough to make babies then they are about as adult as you can get, and should be held fully responsible for their actions.
would you like to see a 10 years old getting the death sentence ? and his execution ?
If the person is 14 or older, definitely tried as an adult. If you can kill someone at 14, you will probably do it at 24.
I'm not sure what to do about a ten year old. That's awfully young for a life sentence or the death sentence. Yet, I do not have faith in the government to provide the services the child would need.
Should teenagers be tried as adults in murder cases?
Why are 16 and 17 year olds getting out of prison when they turn 18 after brutally murdering people?
Answer:
ANYONE at ANY AGE who brutally murders another person should be tried as an adult.
You might say that they don't know right from wrong and I say that does NOT matter. If they are capable of brutally murdering at any age, they should NOT be permitted to exist in our society.
I might agree that they should not be subjected to the death penalty, but they should NEVER be allowed back into society. Period.
Sure,
I had enough sense not to murder anyone when i was a teen.
id say 16- adult
yes, they should...killing someone is killing someone, unless it's justified it shouldn't matter how old you are.
you wanna be treated like an adult when you first get pubes so yeH
there are different circumstances in each individual case
I do not think that 16-17 year olds should be tried as adults.
Don't get me wrong I am in no way condoning what they did!
They should be punished without a doubt.I think that they should have to go to an extensive treatment center and a special facility just for teens that commit these types of atrocities with a maximum sentence of 10-15years at the facility I think with the right treatment some of these teens can become responsible(reformed) adults and be able to be returned to the general public.The teen mind is not the same as a mature adults.
If there were more legal intervention with these types of children then perhaps it would not get to this point .I do not know how I would feel if the crime was committed on someone I know,however I do believe that sending teens to prison is not going to help us get the answers to solve this problem that seems to be escalating.
I think alot of this crime that we are seeing is a result of the growing economical problems.
And the fact that we as a society are not satisfied.
Well these are just my opinions.
I am sure that a more educated person than myself would be able to elaborate more on this subject as to the reasoning for letting the teens out of prison, I do however think that some of them they will not be able to reform and they should definatley not let them out ever.
Teenagers should be tried as adults when dealing with a murder charge. I cannot find one teenager that says they want to be treated as a child. So, if they want to be treated like an adult, then committing an adult crime should result in them being tried as one.
Never.
You are either a child or you're an adult.
We should change the laws for children, or create new laws for teens 13-17.
The answer should NEVER be to try a child as an adult.
That's intellectually dishonest.
Answer:
ANYONE at ANY AGE who brutally murders another person should be tried as an adult.
You might say that they don't know right from wrong and I say that does NOT matter. If they are capable of brutally murdering at any age, they should NOT be permitted to exist in our society.
I might agree that they should not be subjected to the death penalty, but they should NEVER be allowed back into society. Period.
Sure,
I had enough sense not to murder anyone when i was a teen.
id say 16- adult
yes, they should...killing someone is killing someone, unless it's justified it shouldn't matter how old you are.
you wanna be treated like an adult when you first get pubes so yeH
there are different circumstances in each individual case
I do not think that 16-17 year olds should be tried as adults.
Don't get me wrong I am in no way condoning what they did!
They should be punished without a doubt.I think that they should have to go to an extensive treatment center and a special facility just for teens that commit these types of atrocities with a maximum sentence of 10-15years at the facility I think with the right treatment some of these teens can become responsible(reformed) adults and be able to be returned to the general public.The teen mind is not the same as a mature adults.
If there were more legal intervention with these types of children then perhaps it would not get to this point .I do not know how I would feel if the crime was committed on someone I know,however I do believe that sending teens to prison is not going to help us get the answers to solve this problem that seems to be escalating.
I think alot of this crime that we are seeing is a result of the growing economical problems.
And the fact that we as a society are not satisfied.
Well these are just my opinions.
I am sure that a more educated person than myself would be able to elaborate more on this subject as to the reasoning for letting the teens out of prison, I do however think that some of them they will not be able to reform and they should definatley not let them out ever.
Teenagers should be tried as adults when dealing with a murder charge. I cannot find one teenager that says they want to be treated as a child. So, if they want to be treated like an adult, then committing an adult crime should result in them being tried as one.
Never.
You are either a child or you're an adult.
We should change the laws for children, or create new laws for teens 13-17.
The answer should NEVER be to try a child as an adult.
That's intellectually dishonest.
Should teenagers be charged or placed in a juvenile center on their first offense?
Can someone help me? I have to research this question.
Answer:
This has to do with theories of justice and punishment and there are several.
There is just desert, people should be punished for what they deserve.
retributivist theories, people should be punished for the sake of punishment, regardless of what they deserve
specific deterrence, a person should be punished so that they will not do the crime again
general deterrence, a person should be punished as an example to the greater community so as to disuade others from punishing again.
rehabilitation, a person should be punished in such a way that they are rehabilitated
etc.
If your paper includes these theories of justice and punishment, it will be good.
Follow the link below to an online encyclopedia britannica article that will give you an outline on the theories of punishment. You can use this as a springboard to other things, but your essay should us theories of punishment at its core. Next, it should tackle the issue of the effect and controversy of juvenile offenders. You could critique each theory of punishment and see if it succeeds in its traditional goals according to statistics.
goodluck!
It depends on the offense. If you are talking shoplifting, then maybe a diversion program and community service would be appropriate.
If you are talking a violent crime, (murder, robbery, rape, etc) then yes, they should be locked up even if it is their first time. If they are old enough to commit a crime, they are old enough to pay the price for it.
Well, you'd think that if the crime is severe enough, yes, but sometimes I question that. I think there are a lot of factors in making a decision like this.
One thing to keep in mind is that since our society has become so against rehabilitation often, the people who come out of juvenile centers, youth authorities, and prisons come out better criminals, not better human beings.
Some teenaged first offenders are better off being punished outside of the justice system (like with community service, house arrest, etc.).
I believe you'll find evidence to support this on the Internet. I have a family member who works in the juvenile justice system and at present, a kid may be better off NOT being sent into the system according to him.
Answer:
This has to do with theories of justice and punishment and there are several.
There is just desert, people should be punished for what they deserve.
retributivist theories, people should be punished for the sake of punishment, regardless of what they deserve
specific deterrence, a person should be punished so that they will not do the crime again
general deterrence, a person should be punished as an example to the greater community so as to disuade others from punishing again.
rehabilitation, a person should be punished in such a way that they are rehabilitated
etc.
If your paper includes these theories of justice and punishment, it will be good.
Follow the link below to an online encyclopedia britannica article that will give you an outline on the theories of punishment. You can use this as a springboard to other things, but your essay should us theories of punishment at its core. Next, it should tackle the issue of the effect and controversy of juvenile offenders. You could critique each theory of punishment and see if it succeeds in its traditional goals according to statistics.
goodluck!
It depends on the offense. If you are talking shoplifting, then maybe a diversion program and community service would be appropriate.
If you are talking a violent crime, (murder, robbery, rape, etc) then yes, they should be locked up even if it is their first time. If they are old enough to commit a crime, they are old enough to pay the price for it.
Well, you'd think that if the crime is severe enough, yes, but sometimes I question that. I think there are a lot of factors in making a decision like this.
One thing to keep in mind is that since our society has become so against rehabilitation often, the people who come out of juvenile centers, youth authorities, and prisons come out better criminals, not better human beings.
Some teenaged first offenders are better off being punished outside of the justice system (like with community service, house arrest, etc.).
I believe you'll find evidence to support this on the Internet. I have a family member who works in the juvenile justice system and at present, a kid may be better off NOT being sent into the system according to him.
Should teenagers be charged as adults when they commit heinous crimes?
Recently in my city they have been doing hold-ups, killing for fun, burglarizing elderly people, damaging property and holding up immigrant businesses and killing the owners. Any opinions?
Answer:
This is just my opinion
I feel that teens that make adult crimes should be charged and treated as adults, these teens do know its wrong, but they do it any way, also with all the media out there, kids are learning more at younger ages, the one thing they don't learn anymore is that are consequences for their actions, I also feel that the system that no longer allows parents to discipline their children, needs to be changed. When the "child abuse" laws became more and more strict that is when children started becoming more and more violent, and all around bad.
I hope you find this help full.
They should be tried as adults.
Absolutely! They must be held accountable and punishment should be meted out to fit the crime, regardless of age.
Based on past history and crime comitted yes.
ABSOLUTELY. AGE IS NO FACTOR IN KNOWING RIGHT FROM WRONG. YOU COMMIT A CRIME AND WHAT AWAITS YOU IS PRISON.
They should absolutely be held as adults for any crime that results in bodily harm.
yes they should be tried as adults
I have problems with this.
There are situations where I can see that this might be necessary. But kids are not adults. They don't reason like adults, they often don't understand consequences. There is good evidence that if they get appropriate care they can be rehabilitated.
Our justice system needs to look for alternatives to locking eveybody up.
YES
Yes. They're old enough to know right from wrong, even if they might not be mature enough to exercise the proper choices. The real problem is that our entertainment and broadcast industries have infiltrated the teen-agers' world with tens of thousands of murders, rapes, and other violence acts - teens certainly have trouble distinguishing 'entertainment' from reality. But that doesn't mean they should be exempted from those heinous crimes they do commit. -RKO- 04/24/07
If they want to commit grown up crimes, give them grown up sentences. If Justice is truly blind and unbiased, then each criminal should be equally sentenced. Murder is murder is murder. Violence is the same.
I think Texas in the 1800's had it right when they hung a 10 yr old for stealing ahorse. Maybe hanging for car theft would show these young punks that society is sick of them and their garbage.
yes they are doing adult crimes they should be tried as an adult
Answer:
This is just my opinion
I feel that teens that make adult crimes should be charged and treated as adults, these teens do know its wrong, but they do it any way, also with all the media out there, kids are learning more at younger ages, the one thing they don't learn anymore is that are consequences for their actions, I also feel that the system that no longer allows parents to discipline their children, needs to be changed. When the "child abuse" laws became more and more strict that is when children started becoming more and more violent, and all around bad.
I hope you find this help full.
They should be tried as adults.
Absolutely! They must be held accountable and punishment should be meted out to fit the crime, regardless of age.
Based on past history and crime comitted yes.
ABSOLUTELY. AGE IS NO FACTOR IN KNOWING RIGHT FROM WRONG. YOU COMMIT A CRIME AND WHAT AWAITS YOU IS PRISON.
They should absolutely be held as adults for any crime that results in bodily harm.
yes they should be tried as adults
I have problems with this.
There are situations where I can see that this might be necessary. But kids are not adults. They don't reason like adults, they often don't understand consequences. There is good evidence that if they get appropriate care they can be rehabilitated.
Our justice system needs to look for alternatives to locking eveybody up.
YES
Yes. They're old enough to know right from wrong, even if they might not be mature enough to exercise the proper choices. The real problem is that our entertainment and broadcast industries have infiltrated the teen-agers' world with tens of thousands of murders, rapes, and other violence acts - teens certainly have trouble distinguishing 'entertainment' from reality. But that doesn't mean they should be exempted from those heinous crimes they do commit. -RKO- 04/24/07
If they want to commit grown up crimes, give them grown up sentences. If Justice is truly blind and unbiased, then each criminal should be equally sentenced. Murder is murder is murder. Violence is the same.
I think Texas in the 1800's had it right when they hung a 10 yr old for stealing ahorse. Maybe hanging for car theft would show these young punks that society is sick of them and their garbage.
yes they are doing adult crimes they should be tried as an adult
Should teenagers 13-18, be tried as adults when a serious crime is commited?
What percentage of teenagers that are realeased from juvie, commit a crime after being released?
Answer:
In some jurisdictions minors can be charged as adults in murder and treason cases. This depends on their capacity to understand the crime and to form mens rea (this means a conscience and ability to understand the repercussions basically).
Personally I don't think all juveniles should be charged as adults. Generally, people aged between 10 and 12 are not considered to have developed mens reas and as such cannot be charged with a crime (civil action can be taken though). I know some children and teenagers can committ horrible crimes, but they generally have a higher capacity for rehabilitation than adults (as they are not as set in their ways and are still impressionable). Our society works on the basis that most people deserve a second chance. Many people who have committed crimes as young people have gone on to be valued members of society - if they were tried as adults this may not have been so.
However in the case of older teenagers, I believe some of them should be prosecuted as adults. Some crimes are unforgivable and a lot of teenagers have the capability of understanding the repercussions their actions can cause. I think it should be assessed on an indvidual basis - their capacity to understand their actions, their capacity to know it was wrong and their chances for rehabilitation. However this would create more work for the criminal justice system and would most likely not be adopted.
As for the reoffending rates of teenagers released from juvenile detention centres, I do not know the exact figures however in adults it is approximately 90%. I would imagine it would be a similar rate.
Hell yah they should. I had a friend that was killed by a 13 year old with a baseball bat. He only got a year in juvi.
The law should apply to every one equally. It is illegal to single out one group on the basis of age, gender, faith etc etc ....
So, it was wrong to begin with to consider Juvenal criminals are above, beyond the law.
I don't think it should even be considered until age 15. Children's intelligence, maturity, and understanding of consequences vary from one child to another. I do think each child should be evaluated to determine if his mental capacity is that of an adult instead of relying on public outrage and demand for satisfying their perception of justice.
A 13-year-old fully understands that if he or she kills someone, it is forever. They are not "unaware" like some people will try to claim. If they are old enough to do the crime, they are old enough to do the time.
I think ring leaders or teens that acted alone should be tried as adults; kids that were following a crowd(like kids tend to do) should be tried as Juveniles.
I do not know the percentage, but a teenager should be tried as an adult if the crime is serious enough. If a teenager takes a life not out of self defense, and knows that they did so, then they teen should be tried as an adult. They know what they did is wrong and therefore should be treated as an adult who made the same mistake.
If it's Murder, Armed Robbery, Arson, etc... yes.
I remember when kids were afraid of their PARENTS... I'd rather have been beaten by cops that had my Dad catch me doing something stupid.
When I lived in Texas my neighbors daughter was in a state womens prison in Florida because she got in trouble in that time where Florida was tring to crack down on the kids.. she had broke into her grandparents house while they were home with 3 other kids (boys) and the boys made them get down on the knees against a wall, she comforted her grandparents and let them boys rob there house.. She went to prison at the age of 14 and got out at the age of 21, she was the first child in history of Florida to get that kind of sentence, she has now lived the life into her adult life so long that as soon as she got out she didnt know what to do and went right back for prostitution.. I dont know what to think about anything like this.. if you are to hard you could make it worse and to soft it could make it worse too...
If they have the capacity to commit an "adult" crime then they have the capacity to serve "adult" time.
Answer:
In some jurisdictions minors can be charged as adults in murder and treason cases. This depends on their capacity to understand the crime and to form mens rea (this means a conscience and ability to understand the repercussions basically).
Personally I don't think all juveniles should be charged as adults. Generally, people aged between 10 and 12 are not considered to have developed mens reas and as such cannot be charged with a crime (civil action can be taken though). I know some children and teenagers can committ horrible crimes, but they generally have a higher capacity for rehabilitation than adults (as they are not as set in their ways and are still impressionable). Our society works on the basis that most people deserve a second chance. Many people who have committed crimes as young people have gone on to be valued members of society - if they were tried as adults this may not have been so.
However in the case of older teenagers, I believe some of them should be prosecuted as adults. Some crimes are unforgivable and a lot of teenagers have the capability of understanding the repercussions their actions can cause. I think it should be assessed on an indvidual basis - their capacity to understand their actions, their capacity to know it was wrong and their chances for rehabilitation. However this would create more work for the criminal justice system and would most likely not be adopted.
As for the reoffending rates of teenagers released from juvenile detention centres, I do not know the exact figures however in adults it is approximately 90%. I would imagine it would be a similar rate.
Hell yah they should. I had a friend that was killed by a 13 year old with a baseball bat. He only got a year in juvi.
The law should apply to every one equally. It is illegal to single out one group on the basis of age, gender, faith etc etc ....
So, it was wrong to begin with to consider Juvenal criminals are above, beyond the law.
I don't think it should even be considered until age 15. Children's intelligence, maturity, and understanding of consequences vary from one child to another. I do think each child should be evaluated to determine if his mental capacity is that of an adult instead of relying on public outrage and demand for satisfying their perception of justice.
A 13-year-old fully understands that if he or she kills someone, it is forever. They are not "unaware" like some people will try to claim. If they are old enough to do the crime, they are old enough to do the time.
I think ring leaders or teens that acted alone should be tried as adults; kids that were following a crowd(like kids tend to do) should be tried as Juveniles.
I do not know the percentage, but a teenager should be tried as an adult if the crime is serious enough. If a teenager takes a life not out of self defense, and knows that they did so, then they teen should be tried as an adult. They know what they did is wrong and therefore should be treated as an adult who made the same mistake.
If it's Murder, Armed Robbery, Arson, etc... yes.
I remember when kids were afraid of their PARENTS... I'd rather have been beaten by cops that had my Dad catch me doing something stupid.
When I lived in Texas my neighbors daughter was in a state womens prison in Florida because she got in trouble in that time where Florida was tring to crack down on the kids.. she had broke into her grandparents house while they were home with 3 other kids (boys) and the boys made them get down on the knees against a wall, she comforted her grandparents and let them boys rob there house.. She went to prison at the age of 14 and got out at the age of 21, she was the first child in history of Florida to get that kind of sentence, she has now lived the life into her adult life so long that as soon as she got out she didnt know what to do and went right back for prostitution.. I dont know what to think about anything like this.. if you are to hard you could make it worse and to soft it could make it worse too...
If they have the capacity to commit an "adult" crime then they have the capacity to serve "adult" time.
Should teen criminals be sent to adult prison?
Why do you think this?
Answer:
Depends on the crime. Murder, violent rape, etc, merit going to the big house. Age is no excuse, and any leniency towards heinous crimes harms society.
Lesser crimes, no.
No they should not, they could be killed and abused by the older ones there.
yes, a crime is a crime, no matter what the age is of the person who commits it.
Yes.
I had enough sense not to break the law when i was a teen.
No... one reason is because teen criminals can then learn how to be "adult" criminals... prisoners learn from the people around them, and juveniles already learn methods from more "experienced" criminals when they are in juvenile detention centers. Sending them to an adult prison would just make that situation worse, in my opinion.
Answer:
Depends on the crime. Murder, violent rape, etc, merit going to the big house. Age is no excuse, and any leniency towards heinous crimes harms society.
Lesser crimes, no.
No they should not, they could be killed and abused by the older ones there.
yes, a crime is a crime, no matter what the age is of the person who commits it.
Yes.
I had enough sense not to break the law when i was a teen.
No... one reason is because teen criminals can then learn how to be "adult" criminals... prisoners learn from the people around them, and juveniles already learn methods from more "experienced" criminals when they are in juvenile detention centers. Sending them to an adult prison would just make that situation worse, in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)