Laws detailing how to reprimand criminal minors have not significantly changed in over 100 years, but adolescents and the crimes they commit certainly have (Collier 470). No longer are those under the age of 18 merely stealing candy or going for joy rides in their parents’ car. Today’s teens are shooting up schools, raping young girls, and taking part in gang violence and shootings. Not only have the crimes committed by minors become extremely violent, but the amount of violent offenses has increased substantially as well. The number of juvenile crimes in America has catapulted 60% since 1984. Since 1965, the number of violent crimes committed by 13 and 14 year olds has more than tripled (Collier 470). The current system of managing this epidemic of teen violence is outdated, subjective, and clearly not effective. While the underlying causes for this growing problem may be unclear, one thing is certain: legal and social reforms must be made to put an end to this era of adolescent violence.
Today’s method of reprimanding criminal offenders under the age of 18 relies heavily on a single decision: whether the delinquent will be tried as an adult or as a juvenile. If the accused is deemed to remain in juvenile status he or she will be sent to a juvenile correction facility until the maximum age of 21. No matter how horrific or violent the committed crime was, a minor offender must be released at this age, and in some cases, with an expunged record. In a case in which the defendant is tried as an adult, he or she may be sentenced to the furthest extent of the law, including a life sentence or even the death penalty.
It is these two extremes in reprimanding juvenile violent offenders that stir a heated and well-known argument. Many critics of the juvenile court system argue that it is too lenient and does not provide a consequence that equals the crime. “Detaining a rapist or murderer in a juvenile facility until the age of 18 or 21 isn’t even a slap on the hand” (Collier 471). At the other end of the spectrum, those opposed to trying minors as adults feel the punishments are often too harsh for someone under the age of 18. “13-year-old Lionel Tate was sentenced as if he were a button man for some crime family. Tate was given life without parole for the killing of a 6-year-old girl he maintained died in a wrestling accident” (Cohen 474).
Before attempting to change the way in which juvenile offenders are dealt with, this age old argument must first be settled. Teens are certainly no longer children, but not yet adults by legal standards. It is extremely difficult to differentiate which offenders should be tried as adults and which should be handed to the juvenile courts. Decisions such as these are often scrutinized because they are highly subjective. Finding an answer to whether teens are closer to childhood or nearer to reaching adulthood is not necessary. Teens are teens and should be reprimanded accordingly. Children are in the midst of learning right from wrong, and how their decisions can bring about positive or negative consequences. Adults are expected to have a firm grasp of morality and are punished with jail time upon knowingly breaking the law. Teens fall into the gray area between childhood and the realization of maturity and adulthood, and should therefore should be sentenced with this theory in mind.
Because teen offenders fall into the legally undefined middle ground between children and adults, the way in which they are punished and treated should reflect this fact. Choosing one extreme or another has statistically proven to be ineffective. Therefore, using a combination of both reform tactics, as seen in juvenile facilities, as well as jail time seems to be more appropriate. Attempts at reforming a delinquent can include several courses of action. Providing mandatory education to the incarcerated would better enable them to make healthier lifestyle choices once released. One possible way to put forth this system would require all offenders to complete high school level courses or obtain a G.E.D. in order to be released. In addition to being educated in general knowledge areas, offenders should be taught critical problem solving skills as well methods of anger management. Counseling concerning family and lifestyle issues would also be greatly beneficial, and may allow offenders as well as counselors to understand why violence is taking place and how to prevent it. A career counselor would also be extremely helpful and would aid in providing potential opportunities for the juvenile after being released. Upon completing these treatments, an offender may return to his or her life with the proper tools to become a more productive member of society.
While attempts at reforming delinquents are key to ending the era of adolescent violence and crime, ensuring an understanding of consequences is also very important. For extremely violent crimes, such as the case concerning a 13-year-old boy who knowingly shot and killed his teacher, punishment is necessary (Cohen 473). Simply attempting to make an extremely violent offender or murderer a better person is not enough to emphasize the seriousness of his or her actions. “Children who knowingly engage in adult conduct and adult crimes should automatically be subject to adult rules and adult prison time” (Collier 472). Before being given a second chance and opportunity to turn one’s life around, a juvenile murderer must first complete a designated amount of jail time as determined by the court. Though the time served would be in an adult penitentiary, the amount of time would not be equal to that given to an adult. Minimum and maximum sentences would be lower than those for adults, and life sentencing or the death penalty are certainly not appropriate. The intent of this punishment is to ensure the realization of the gravity and seriousness of the crime in which he or she committed, and that it is in no way acceptable or excusable. Following completion of prison time, the offender will also feel relieved and thankful to be enrolled in a reform center, and would therefore be more willing to change.
Every day, more teens turn to violence, and more fall victim to their crimes. Every year, newscasts tell of another massive school shooting. Morphing those belonging to this generation of crime and violence into productive and law-abiding citizens is certainly not an easy task. As crime rates sky-rocket, the need for this change becomes ever more apparent. The teens committing these crimes will soon be adults, able to further influence society and culture. Through the combination of punishment and reform, a realization will occur: that every action and decision has a reaction and a consequence. It is the job of today’s adults to take these necessary steps, no matter the cost, to parent the young and give them the tools to lead us into the coming years.
Works Cited
Cohen, Richard. “Kids Who Kill Are Still Kids.” Read, Reason, Write: An Argument Text and Reader. 7th ed. Ed. Dorothy U. Seyler. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. 473-474.
Collier, Linda. “Adult Crime, Adult Time.” Read, Reason, Write: An Argument Text and Reader. 7th ed. Ed. Dorothy U. Seyler. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. 469-472.
No comments:
Post a Comment