Should teens be convicted for their crimes
Should teens be convicted for their crimes?It is fair that: incest, rape, slaughter, child / elderly abuse or any form of immoral and dishonest human manifestation goes without some sort of punishment? My frank and blameless answer is no. No! There is no path or decision that could redeem the actions of a person that takes away a life. However, some people still believe that redemption is a responsible path to change the harmful criminal's mind; that they can convert themselves into good persons of society. To those who believe that such repentance is sufficient, just think about this example: A given criminal savagely raped your seven-year-old daughter while she innocently played on her best friend's house. The criminal is only sixteen years old, and after abusing your kid, he claims impunity and ask for the pardon of the law, society and God. In the end, he asks for your mercy and forgiveness. Taking that case in account, should anyone have the courage to say that a criminal's retribution for such a crime is adequate? Then: Thus the fact that he is underage or a minor is a reasonable excuse for the crime; and therefore he shouldn't be punished? My answer is, No! No, I strongly disagree with a possible redemption for such
Furthermore, juvenile court operates under the presumption that juvenile offenders are immature, while the adult court operates under the presumption that defendants are mature, competent and responsible. He will be the source that ultimately determines the level of maturity of the villain, eliminating any theories regarding age and the capacity to stand a trial. From this nostalgic statement I derived my firm conviction that age doesn't matters when observing the consequences of a crime. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation in teen crime show that 25% of the actual jail populations were juvenile offenders and exclusively in United States one sixth of all crimes belongs to juveniles. So there is no excuse, the juvenile is concern about the criminal and evil acts he will perform. But, isn't true that fair court proceedings will examine the mental state of a patient before beginning to give any kind of verdict? Therefore, the age of the accused is not necessarily a determining factor when taking upon consideration the fact that the mental state of the patient is proved to be working in range to the proceedings that he's jump to face. Having this on standpoint, there's not even the least chance that a person can escape unpunished once he committed a crime. It's obvious, when he pulled the trigger, on purpose, wasn't he conscious that the chances of hurting the victim were almost inevitable? Didn't he know that he was using the fire weapon as a tool of destruction? The answer is obvious: Yes, of course he knew what he would cause. The male jogger was set by a group of teenagers on April 19, raped, savagely beaten with a lead pipe, rocks, and a brick, and left unconscious and near death in a dark wooded area of the park. However, how do we have the certainty that if we don't punish the act, the minor might actually understand that is okay to do such delinquent activities? For example, let us take the case of a 28-year-old investment banker jogging in New York City's Central Park that was published in archives of Articles in Collier's Year Book. Imagine his crime remains unpunished. When this criminal is released into the streets, don't you think that he would represent a potential hazard in society? Statistics of the U. At the end of it, imagine a situation where a love one is brutally killed. If a trigger is pulled, a jail bar should be placed immediately following.
Common topics in this essay:
,
Bureau Investigation,
Collier's Book,
Central Park,
mental patient,
taking consideration,
court operates presumption,
pay price,
operates presumption,
juvenile offenders,
court operates,
male jogger,
committed crime,
minor doesn't,
|
Acceptance Essays
