While it does depend on the crime committed, judges do tend to try to give first-time offenders more than a slap on the wrist. While it is necessary to give them a punishment that will show them that they need to stop, they shouldn't spend the rest of their life struggling to get a job because of that one offense.
I guess it depends on what crime the person committed in the first place, but usually they are too harsh.Kids will be kids and the judge has to look at that. The people need to be relaxed when it come to these kids, they may have issues at home and lashing out is how they get peace.
Of course, this depends on which crime was committed. But I do think judges are a little too harsh when sentencing first time juvenile offenders. I think they are trying to send a message to the offender and to other youth not to make these same mistakes, but it's their life that's being taken away.
I do not think that some judges are too harsh when dealing with some first-time juvenile offenders. I think it is important for judges to be fair but harsh on criminals regardless of what their age. I think that the law should not be bias when it comes to topics like these.
Everyone makes mistakes, but first-time juvenile offenders need to be taught a lesson so they do not commit the same crime again. Judges aren't too harsh, mainly because they want kids to stay out of trouble. As juveniles, chances are they won't see jail time. However, it is important that kids know there is a justice system out there if they don't behave in the future.
Judges are likely harsh on first time juvenile offenders because they want to teach the young adult the consequences of their actions. Often times these offenders have no structure at home and may need time away to complete school or obtain discipline training. Judges are deterring first-time offenders from become adult offenders which carry more consequences.