• Yes, They know the difference between right and wrong.

    When kids hit the age of at least 10 they should have been taught the difference between right and wrong. They know fully what they are doing and they also know they shouldn't. If they have the mental capacities to think of a murder and follow through, they have no right to be tried as a kid because those thoughts are very mature.

  • Yes of course, they knew what they were doing.

    They knew what they were doing when they committed the crime, and they also knew there would be consequences behind their actions. What if a group of children tied your child on rail tracks and didn't have reason to do so, it was just for fun. Now your child is dead, killed instantly. You wouldn't want life for that group of children?

  • Yes, kids should be tried as adults.

    If they committed and chose to do it, when they didn't have to, they should be punished for what they did just like adults would. They didn't have to commit a crime, but they did. Therefore if a child commits a serious crime, they should be tried as adults for what they did.

  • Should kids be tried as adults

    I feel students should be tried as adults but only in the most extreme case. In violent cases such as murder and rape, the person needs to be held accountable for the crime that they committed; these are the only cases in which I feel kids should be tried as an adult.

  • Defiantly, they need to learn punishment

    If they do not get properly punished they will think they can get away with anything.
    For example, when a child does not get punished they are more inclined to misbehave.
    That applies to minors and adult crimes. I myself as a minor think that if
    I or anyone else commits a crime should be properly punished the same as adults, do we really want repeat criminals on the street no matter how young

  • Yes

    Yes, most of the time, I think kids should be tried as adults. Specifically, if the crime is murder. If someone is old enough to commit the crime, then they are old enough to serve the time. I do not think they should be thrown into the regular prison system until they are of age though.

  • Students should be tried as adults.

    I feel students should be tried as adults but only in the most extreme case. In violent such as murder and rape the person needs to be held accountable for the crime that they committed. These are the only cases in which i feel kids should be tried as an adult.

  • Yes they should

    They will learn their lesson and it will probable scarce them but they have a less likely to do bad stuff and sure they might get the death sentence or life in jail but they will learn and will not do the same stuff again and be less likely to go to jail.

  • It is a chance to help the convicted child.

    A child's mind is more susceptible to change and if they are punished, severely, it would more good than bad. They could either be in a juvenile center where they think out the wrong they did and regret it or be outside in the real world not their crime was not punished.

  • I am a Ten year old

    And I believe that depending on the crime such as rape, assault, murder, sexual abuse, and property destruction like burning or breaking SHOULD definitely be tried as an adult because even though the law is that you have to be at least 18 we shouldn't be letting kids get away with those sort of crimes because Juvenile Detention Centers do not give the same punishment as a prison or jail does. But I do wish the government would use Circle Justice more.

  • No, that's an outrage.

    Kids' minds are not fully developed and some kids come from a broken home, just like Robert Yummy Sandier. He was a kid whose parents were always coming in and out of jail, and nobody gave him any attention. Kids always take after their parents, so Yummy kept on going to jail.

  • No never, why does mankind think this?

    It's not right I negate that juveniles charged with violent crimes should be tried and punished as adults. To ensure there are no misconceptions in interpreting the resolution, I will provide the following definitions. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines juvenile as an individual who is under an age fixed by law at which he or she would be charged as an adult for a criminal act. Many state justice systems consider 17 and under a juvenile. In North Carolina, a juvenile is fifteen years and younger. Black Law's Dictionary defines violent crime as a crime that violates the rights of one's person or property. Thomson Gale Legal Encyclopedia defines an adult as a person who by virtue of attaining a certain age, generally eighteen, is regarded in the eyes of the law as being able to manage his or her own affairs. My value will be Sanctity of Human Life, which is important because every human has rights, dignity, and value. This value relates to the resolution because by trying and punishing juveniles as adults undermines the value of today's youth and what they could become. One mistake should not ruin the rest of a fifteen-year-old boy or girl's life. My criterion will be the protection of rights. This criterion is important because the rights of juveniles in the justice system, such as confidential records and rehabilitation services, are kept in place to help juveniles continue with their future. This criterion achieves my value premise because how well one's rights are protected can have a big impact on the sanctity or worth of one's life. My first contention is that juveniles are not capable of meaningful participation in his or her defense. A Criminal Justice Magazine article states, "Just as the capacities of some adults are limited by their mental disorders so, too, may some youths' participation in the legal process be limited by their as-yet underdeveloped capacities." The article goes on to address the juvenile's understanding of the law and ability to assist counsel makes them less capable of participating in the defense than the average adult defendant. Even though youths may develop the capacity for understanding rights early in adolescence, it often takes additional time and life experiences before their capacity influences their actual understanding. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is different than understanding long consequences. A Miranda Rights Study showed that the ability to comprehend legal information is poorer in adolescents of low intelligence than adults of likewise low intelligence. The same study also suggested youth have trouble separating the defense attorney from court authority. About a third of them (compared to about ten percent of adult offenders) believed the lawyer could decide to report the defendant's guilt to the court or whether to "let him go or send him up.

  • Kids should not be

    I don't think that kids should be tried as adults because they are not usually use to things like this and there brains are not fully developed so it not all there fault also kids are also tempted to do things because of peer pleasure and it is not there fault

  • No, kids should not be tried as adults.

    If a kid were to commit a heinous crime, I would be much more worried about his/her psychological well-being and his/her home life than in making sure they are punished. According to neuroscience, the brain does not fully develop until our mid twenties. Though our understanding of right and wrong has surely been developing for many years before this time, we cannot count on a child to truly understand all aspects involved in committing a crime.

  • Just Kids.

    Kids should not be tried as adults. They are still learning how to become a good member of society and should be able to make mistakes without fully facing the consequences until they are fully able to make the right choices. That takes time, and children need to be given that time.

  • No, except in extreme cases.

    Trying children as adults assumes parents are not responsible for raising them, that it should be on the shoulders of "the village" to rule and enforce corrections. If a child exhibits adult-like planning in a murder, for example, he or she should absolutely be tried as an adult. But mostly, I believe the parents/guardians of children should be tried for the bad seed they helped raise.

  • They should not

    They should not be trialed as an adult since their mind isn't fully developed and they're not considered adults. If they were they'd be able to vote, but they're not. They still depend on their parents. If it were your child you would have a different mentality view. You can't judge them because you don't know their hardships. If put into with adults they have a less chance of redeeming themselves, since the older inmates are there "role models" were putting them with them where they learn to commit more serious crimes or more. Kids are also easily influence

  • I don't think so

    I think it depends on the severity of the crime and their personal situation but for the most part I think that it is unfair to be tried as an adult. If you aren't the age of an adult and do not have the same rights as an adult then why would you be tried as one?

  • No kids dont mean to

    Kids dont want to do bad things or make wrong decisions it just comes with the mind of a kid. They try to be more considerate of others but sometimes they dont understand what is right from what is wrong. Which isn't their fault they haven't experienced life yet to the fullest.

  • No!!!!!! They should NOT

    Kids are young, do you think that they would be able to survive mote than a YEAR in prison? If a kid commits a SERIOUSLY bad crime like murder, then HELL YEAH, but otherwise, NO WAY! If we did that, well, I couldn't say much for our species.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.