Teenage Crimes Essay Example

As we all know, in the government you are considered underage until the age of 18, before this, it is still required for you to have adult supervision. This is all reasonable and manageable, but it is when this underaged person does something illegal that the problem arises. People underaged are still under the custody of their guardians and according to the law, most of their actions are the guardian’s responsibility, but this is where the argument of whether this is unconstitutional begins. Are Guardians of Underaged Kids and teens directly responsible for their illegal activities, such as assault? Depending on case to case the answer can vary, but as a whole, both guardians and underaged people should be held accountable for the crime in question.

The kind of crime that is being widely discussed is not something minor that can get an adult a simple fine or a stop at the police station, the thing that is being discussed is different forms of assault and in some cases murder. These are more serious crimes that can completely change the lives of those affected and should not be taken lightly, it is hard to believe that some children or teens would have the capacity in their head to want to do such harm, but unfortunately, it is something that has happened before. When these cases accrue usually the first thing to check is the child’s home life and guardians activities, this is because many times the guardians are the ones who have in one way or another, that being through manipulation, neglect, or abuse, have either forces or thaught the child to do such crimes. As previously mentioned in many cases of child criminals, it is their home life that drives them to such crimes. Take the murder of James Bulger, for example. He was a two-year-old boy who was killed by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, While Jon’s parents were in no way the best, they were etiquette. Jon was not being abused by his parents or by classmates, the investigation found, and any other action did not seem to be an indicator of his actions. Robert, on the other hand, was subject to abuse, physical and verbal of his parents. These two children took to violence against the two-year-old boy to release their anger and grief, and although nothing can fully justify their actions in killing James, the parents are greatly responsible. 

In Jon’s case, the parents, although responsible, in his case should not hold up as much accountability as Roberts’s parents. Yes, Jon was not in optimum condition, but he lived a comfortable life, with all the investigation done, nothing pointed to something that could have driven him to murder an innocent person. Roberts’s parents on the other hand had a lot to do with his actions. Robert was raised in an environment where that’s all he knew.  To him, those in less power were nothing but things to be controlled, and his parents played an enormous part in that. This does not Justify what he did, but it does give an explanation as to why he might have done this. In this case, it can clearly be seen that the parents should be held accountable for the role they played in the crime, the children should also be judged, but their parents should be taken into account. These types of cases highlight how much others can impact children, these parents had such an effect on these children that they were driven to assault. The only cases where it can be justifiable that the parents are not as responsible as the child for their actions are when an older person, those such as older adolescents, are the ones who do the crime. While people this age can still be manipulated, if the parent is adequate in what they are doing and doesn’t show any sign of being the reason the child has assaulted someone else, they should not be judged as harshly as this adolescent. Teens’ brains are not fully developed, that’s absolutely true, but that does not mean that an adolescent does not know the difference between right and wrong.

Varying from case to case, the belief that friends should be fully responsible for underaged crimes is irrational and unconstitutional. While it is reasonable to think that the guardians should have some blam of a crime, if the guardians show no sign of abuse toward the child or adolescent in question, including neglect, manipulation, and other forms of abuse, then there is no direct reason that they should be charged as if they themselves committed this crime.