Juvenile Justice

Juvenile offenders should be held accountable for their actions, as should any criminal. Depending on the severity of a crime, they should face the same punishment for the same crime as if committed by an adult. The question remains, should they be considered equal to these adult offenders in the eyes of the court. These juvenile offenders are charged with crimes and tired in a court with adults, in a place that we built and molded for adults. Is this a fair strategy to help society and deal with these juvenile offenders, or is it just putting additional strain on an already complicated issue?
Since the turn of the century, when juvenile courts were put in effect, there have been instances where juveniles have been tired as adults. Few states usedthis method to deal with the worst of thejuvenile cases, while the juvenile court was still reserves for the remainder. Gradually, other states began to also use this method of transferring juveniles into adult courts. If their crime was too heinous or the juvenile court could not handle them, they were transferred. During recent years, an increasing number of juvenile offenders have been transferred out of the juvenile and into the adult courts. By the 1990's, every state had some kind of method for moving these young offenders. The line between the two courts has always been a penetrable one, but when and how it should be crossed is under debate. Do these moves or "transfers" actually work to help the problem, or is it a way not to help our most troubled youth.
When a Juvenile commits a crime, he or she should be punished as an adult would be punished for the same crime. Look at one example of a murder case. 13-year-old, Nathaniel Brazill was convicted of 2nd-degree murder of Mr. Grunow, his English teacher in May 2000. Nathaniel was sent home for misbehaving. Nathaniel allegedly returned to school with a gun, he stole out of his grandfather's drawer. At the end…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *