Juvenile offenders should have an opportunity to get a reduced sentence if they are showing signs of actual rehabilitation and depending on the nature of the crime. The system is not designed to help the troubled youth, but if the proper services can be provided to the young offender, he or she should be able to get a reduced sentence.
Generally speaking, juvenile offenders should have shorter sentences than adult offenders because lack of maturity and experience can lead to unwise decisions. However, in the case of homicides and mass killings, juvenile offenders should be tried as adults because those crimes are too heinous to be chalked up to youthful bad decision-making.
A while ago, I viewed a documentary on Netflix the title of which I have long ago forgotten, but one that pertains to this argument. Children were being charged with minor petty crimes, I.e. school house roughery. They were being put away for months sometimes years. In the end ruining their lives by being viewed as criminals, for hair pulling, talking back, etc.
In all likelihood, some leniency has to be given for kids, given that they have not fully developed a rational mind. However, to say that the default is a reduction in sentence, rather than assessing the juvenile's competency in having committed the crime simply leads to arbitrary lines putting the population in danger.
I don't know about everyone else, but generally speaking in Canadian courts there is the caveat to try a juvenile as an adult depending on the crime, depending on their maturity/ competence.
What is your line for calling someone 'juvenile'? I have seen people at 12 who seem well aware of their actions and impact. I have seen people at 16/17 who simply don't seem to understand those things. Would you try the two the same, simply because of an arbitrary line of 'juvenile'? How do you set that line?
I think that this oversimplifies an oft times complex issue.
We r in 2016 where a child is much way smarter than his parents. According to me for a juvenile, the punishment should be further more divided into refined criteria like for a child between 8-14 years and 14-18years.
8-14 years there should be a strict punishment as well as moral education for them but 14-18 years teenager are well enough to predict what they are going to commit so their sentences should not be reduced
P.S: only special child juveniles should have their sentences reduced because they are unable to take rational decision
A crime is a crime, if it is committed by a juvenile or an adult. If the juvenile is committing a heinous crime , he or she has to be punished and he or she should not be allowed to get away with it. This will help in ensuring the safety if our society