Some of them commits the crime, because they think that it will make him or her the BIG DOG, or have a reputation. Because they are so selfish they don't care if their PARENTS, FRIENDS and PEOPLE are affected by the ugly behaviour. To harsher the penalties, they should learn ....
People that are arrested or put in jail got put in jail for a reason, for whatever they did, they shouldn't just get out of it for nothing. They need to know that bad actions lead to consequences. If people know that punishments are harsher, then they'll stop doing crimes.
Juvenile means someone who is immature, he can be 12, 15, 18 or even 23. Punishments should not be restricted based on just age. The court should decide whether the person was responsible for their actions (which they are in most cases) and punish accordingly. Relaxing punishments even when crimes are deliberate may encourage the criminal to repeat.
This question to me is a complete "no brainier". Yes, I do think stricter punishment for juvenile crimes could very well help reduce them. The bottom line is, if they are taught their lesson the first time around, they may lose their desire to continue down the path they are going.
By implementing stricter punishments for juvenile crimes, young offenders will be less likely to commit crimes in the future. However, the justice system needs to focus upon rehabilitating repeat offenders, so added punishments aren't always the best answer. A mix of punishment and rehabilitation would work best in most cases.
Stricter punishment is the answer to juvenile crimes. Courts give juveniles a second chance most of the time and they end up committing more serious crimes the next time because they think they can get away with it. I think if they can do the crime then they should be prepared to do the time for their actions.
I believe that the juvenile justice system tends to be too easy on some children who commit crimes. I think children who commit crimes should receive stricter and longer punishments, in hopes that they do not decide to continue to commit crimes as adults. I think if we continue handing out weak punishments, they will continue to commit crimes.
Punishment deterres criminal behavior. This has been confirmed based on studies in behavior psychology. Its basic operant conditions, in which a negative stimulus in response to an action, reduces probability of action from occurring again. Age does not matter, since this effect occurs regardless of age. Animals are prone to operant conditioning, and are of lower intelligence. If juveniles know that a negative stimulus will occur in response to an action, they are less likely to do it.
Firstly, we should stop any kinds of pushing for youths. For example, at school or in their social life they have a lot of problems and they can not manage it by themselves. Also, they are stressed, bullied and badly education by their parents, they have not enough money for entertainment such as going outside with rich friends or something like that and it is an important issue for them. So, adults should find another way, except pushing them harder.
There are all kinds of bad things in jail. In jail, teenagers can learn how to be a REAL criminal from other prisoner. Or simply, they could get bully,beat up or anything that could happen to teens in that place and a lot more which no one can expect. The debatestops here.
Punishment is strict already in the US; any place where people, as children, can be completely controlled by the state for the majority of their young life for simple acts of drug possessions or petty vandalism is a place that already have far too harsh of punishments in place, and should focus attention elsewhere.
Some people think that the harsher the punishment, the worse the deterrent, but that is often not the case. Juveniles do need punishments, but more than anything than need opportunities to reform their behavior so that they can be productive members of society. Harsher punishments will most likely lead to more criminal behavior later.
Juveniles after puberty should not get harsher or more lenient punishment then adults. It should be the same. It's a common myth that the human brain is not fully developed till 25. The study just restrained teens and adults to an MRI machine and had them perform the same tasks. Teens and adults performed EQUALLY well, but brain activity varied in teens and adults. The brain is fully competent at puberty. Our brains develop throughout life. A 40 year old will become a different person when he's 70. Experiences shape the brain just like the brain changes how we make decisions. Having experience doesn't necessarily make you wiser. Researchers failed to explain why brain activity varied in teens and adults. For younger children, instead of a juvenile system, we should have a "not guilty due to immaturity."
The main reason that juveniles commit crimes is because they are not taught to be morally straight by their parents when they are growing up. Children need to be disciplined and taught that committing crimes is not acceptable. The justice systems can detain criminals, but a good foundation growing up is what will reduce these crimes.
Delinquency in youth is unfortunate-- and should be punished-- but the maturity of the moral agents must be taken into consideration. It is not easy, in some cases, to draw the line between adults and adolescents. However, we must assume certain differences in order to justly prosecute the American populace.
Crimes related to underage drinking, drug use and vandalism are serious, but the level of accountability for such acts are not easy to define. If a five year old steals some Tic-Tacs from the grocery store, it would be inappropriate to incarcerate them. Conversely, if a middle-aged man robs a bank at gunpoint, jail would seem quite appropriate.
The tacit assumption seems to be that moral agents under a certain age or maturity level are not fully responsible for their actions. However, in some extreme cases, such as murder, a person under 18 may be tried as an adult. The qualifications for adulthood and accountability appear to have a positive correlation with the severity of the crime the party committed. Still, there are not absolute or objective qualities present by which we can make judgments about heir accountability.
In lieu of quantifiable measurements for what is "juvenile," I argue that the young and immature delinquent, at his or her very least, is naive and capable of significant change in the majority of cases. On the other hand, one might assume that an adult is relatively informed and aware of the consequences of their actions, and should subsequently be so much more accountable for their ethical decisions.
Juveniles are still developing both mentally and emotionally. The neural pathways are not completely set. For that reason, it is not a wise idea to punish juveniles the same as adults. Take the moment to actually teach the youth that what they are doing as wrong. There still needs to be consequences, of course.