Some argue that if juveniles have the capacity to commit a crime severe enough to deserve an equal punishment, there should be no leniency. Others however strongly believe that juvenile offenders should not be punished the same way an adult would for any crime. The death penalty for juveniles is the most popular form of punishment that has caused much attention. According to an article on the San Diego Union Tribune, the Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for juveniles because it goes against the 8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The argument is that minors do not have the maturity that adults have and are easily influenced by others, and even life terms are being considered cruel and unusual for juveniles.
If minors commit any other crime besides murder, juveniles should have alternatives other than serving time in prison. Rehabilitative programs are one option, where juveniles would be able to prove that they have learned from their mistakes. In my opinion, I believe this is a good approach to dealing with juvenile delinquency, although I can’t help but think what would happen if an offender was to be released and then commits another crime as an adult. Could this have been prevented if the offender was incarcerated instead? In the girl’s case above, what would be the appropriate punishment? Because it was a murder and taking advantage of the fact that life terms for juveniles have not been abolished yet, I believe it would be understandable if she spent the rest of her life in prison rather than going easy on her and risking her committing future crimes.

No comments:
Post a Comment