With the great amount of crimes committed in the U.S. Teenagers and young adults have the highest rates of crimes according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. These crimes consist of thefts, robberies, burglary, threatening, and murder. When it comes to sentencing many people go back and forth on the issue of should they be tried as adults? Through my research I have had a change of mind. Teenagers should not be tried as adults do to their undeveloped brains or minds. While a lot of people appose the sentencing of minors as adults, I will try to change the minds of those who see this issue differently to me.
A juvenile used to be held to the same standard as adults prior to the 17th century in Europe. Europeans thought that childhood ended at the age of five. It explains how the greatest changes in juvenile treatment were changed by the European church in the 17 and 18 hundreds. In that era many of what we have as laws now where created. Explaining for a juvenile to be considered criminal, there must be actus reus (the criminal act itself), mens rea (the intent to commit the criminal act), and corpus delecti (the interaction between the act and the intent to commit it). Since the child mind is incapable of thinking in mens rea they shouldn’t be held 100 percent responsible for committed crimes (Amy Miller).
When youths commit a crime they look at case by case bases. The way many courts look at maturity is based mainly on social norms and legal comfort areas for other adult functions, such as driving, voting, marrying, and signing contracts typically 18. Juvenile courts assumed that young offenders are not fully responsible for illegal behaviors. Because they were immature, they had "room to reform" before reaching adulthood (Jeffrey, Fagan). The courts decided that rehabilitation was better suited than imprisonment for younger aged offenders with fully undeveloped minds.
If Juveniles are placed in a category, age wise then why aren’t all the laws from...