Teenage Crime Essay: What is Fair?

Teenage Crime Essay: What is Fair? 

In the last decade, there has been a plethora of debate whether it is fair if teenagers should be tried as adults and face life in prison. When looking at court cases, teenagers should be carefully evaluated before conviviting them as adults. Juveniles need to be held accountable for their crimes, but should not be sentenced life in prison, for they need to be treated differently than adults due to the significant brain tissue loss in teenage years, the inconsistency of legality such as sentencing teens to life in prison but not allowing them other rights of adults like voting, and unfairness of denying them the access of rehabilitation and education. 

Paul Thompson, brain researcher at University of California, Los Angeles and writer for the Sacramento Bee, suggests in the 2001 article, “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains,” that teenagers are not adults and should not be tried as adults due to extreme changes in the brain during the teen years. His research group at UCLA and colleagues at the National Institutes of Health studied the patterns of brain growth in teens and adults over time. The biggest surprise was the massive loss of brain tissue that happens during the teenage years. Thompson included statistics about his research, such as stating “Gray matter, which brain researchers believe supports all our thinking and emotions, is purged at a rate of 1 percent to 2 percent a year during this period [of teenage years],” to further his argument that teens are losing control of their impulses and it is not their fault. The frontal lobe that inhibits reckless actions and violent passions, restructures itself during the teen years, which helps prove teenagers' brains are not fully developed like adults. Although this research helps us better understand teen brains by explaining that brain tissue loss can increase reash actions, it cannot excuse their violent behavior and actions. Thompsons research information helps prove teenage brains are still reconstructing, therefore teens can be rehabilitated and taught better understanding of right from wrong instead of instantly being forced into a criminal environment.  

Marjie Lundstrom explains how kids “become” adults when they commit serious crimes, but agrees with Thompson and stands against juveniles being instantly tried as adults in court. Lundstroms article, “Kids Are Kids-Until They Commit Crimes'' in the Sacramento Bee, raises the dilemma that charging young adolescents as adults causes inconsistency though the legal system, for teens do not also get the rights that adults are given, such as voting. Lunderstrom supports her argument that teenagers are different than adults and should be treated so in the legal system by stating by running younger kids though the adult system, it “belies everything the juvenile justice system is all about: that kids are different.” She argues that there is a juvenile justice system for a reason, so teens and kids can be tried properly. She then questions that if teenagers and young adolescents can be tried as adults, why are they not given other rights that adults have as well?  Lundstorm believes we are setting teens up for failure by not giving them equal rights and forcing them into adult systems. In fact, research suggests teenagers who are forced through the adult legal system have come out more likely to stay as violent criminals than those teens who are handled properly in the juvenile legal side. Lundstroms argument further proves that it is unfair to treat teenagers like adults, and therefore not right to try them as such. 

Gail Garinger in his New York Times article “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences” from 2012 also explains several points that prove adolescents should not get sentenced to life in prison like adults, for they would be denied rehabilitation and educational programs that could make them a better, well-rounded person. Garinger states “... Young people are biologically different than adults,” and that their actions cannot be held to the same standards as adults when they commit crimes. Garinger suggests that because teens are “more vulnerable to peer pressure… and their character [is] still in formation” at a young age, it allows them to also be able to change in rehabilitation for the better. With a second chance, and rehabilitation, these adolescents can become beneficial to society instead of doomed future criminals. Teenagers put in adult legal systems are placed in an environment where they cannot learn better morals and life lessons. Garinger also suggests that young adolescents can be raised in deprived environments and act out because they do not know any better. By sentencing these teenagers to life, they will face cruel punishment instead of learning what is actually right from wrong in rehabilitation centers. 

Several people still believe teenagers who commit crimes, stay criminals forever, even with proper teaching and morals. Teacher and author of “On Punishment and Teen Killings,” Jennifer Jenkins, argues teenagers should be allowed to be sentenced to life in prison and cases involving homicide should focus on the “victims needs.” Jenkins' pregnant sister, and brother-in-law, were murdered by a teen who said he killed because he wanted to know what the thrill felt like. How do we know the information in her article is factual and not bias due to her past experience? Jenkins' teaching and family history has allowed her to have some experience with juvenile teenagers. However, she only taught 16 and 17 year olds and has no other professional legal knowledge, therefore her idea of young teenage brains could be biased. 

Juveniles need to be held accountable for their crimes, but should be treated differently than adults in the long run. One reason is because teenagers experience significant brain tissue loss in their teenage years, and therefore are underdeveloped, unlike adults. Also, the inconsistency in the legal system if one can sentence teens to life in prison but not allow them other rights of adults such as voting. Lastly, when looking at court cases, teenagers should be carefully evaluated before conviviting them as adults because most teenage brains are still forming and could use rehabilitation and educational programs to stop them from being life-long criminals.