Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effects of juvenile crime
The concept of developmental theories of crime
Juvenile crimes in the US
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effects of juvenile crime
The concept of developmental theories of crime
Juvenile crimes in the US
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Paul Thompson in the article “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” , claims that 14 year old Brazil, charged in last May’s shooting of middle school teacher Gunrow, was found guilty of second degree murder. Paul Thompson supports his by first explaining that Brazil was only 12 when the incident happen. He then says since he was only 12 , his brain was and still is not fully developed. Lastly the author says ,” teenagers are not yet adults , and the legal system shouldn’t treat them as such. Thompson’s purpose is to get the world to know , if children are not yet adults, why are they being treated like one in the legal system in order to stop it.
In “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains,” Paul Thompson--a neuroscientist at UCLA--argues that minors should not be sentenced as adults because their brains are not the same as adults’ brains. Even though Thompson believes that minors should be held accountable for their crimes, he presents evidence from recent studies to explain the differences between the brains of minors and adults. It is not surprising that Thompson uses logical evidence to defend his position, given that he is a scientist. However, Thompson frequently uses emotional persuasion--or pathos--to convince his readers that sentencing minors as adults is both unjust and uninformed. Through his use of structure and emotionally charged language, Thompson attempts to convince readers
In Paul Thompson’s article “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” the author talks about how that teenagers who committed crimes should not be treated as adults in the legal system. Thompson also talked about how statistically teenage brains are still developing throughout their teenage years. The author Paul Thompson is more credible because not only he provided heavy words and having an expansive vocabulary he also provided examples from facts and his own research as well. Specifically, in the article and on paragraph 6 the author uses examples from his research and resides it with the current topic and to his own opinions, in the paragraph he mixed both ethos and logos to try in luring readers. The technique that Thompson uses is very unique,
Paul Thompson is the article, “ Startling finds on teenage brains “ , explains what Nathaniel Brazil did in West Palm Beach and what he was charged with. The author supports his claim when he says , ¨ 14 year - old Brazil, charged in last Mays shooting of middle - school teacher Grunow, was found guilty of second degree murder. ¨ He then explains how Brazil will be charged as an adult and how he would be faced to life in prison. Lastly, the author explains how the jurors believed that the murder was not accidental , and was not fully throughout either.
Paul Thompson in the article "Startling Finds on Teenage Brains" suggest that teenagers have something in their brains. Thompson supports his/her suggestion by first explaining how a 14 year old killed a teacher and outside people are say a “A child is not a man.” He/she then tells how school shootings have gotten more frequent over the years and also how teenagers lose a lot of brain tissue during their teenage years.
Paul Thompson in the article “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” explains that any young teen is dar from adulthood. Thompson supports his statement by first giving examples on the different studies being held on the brains of teens. He then gives us some of the own research that his group at University of California, Los Angeles and says that there is a massive loss of brain tissue that occurs in teenage years also that they’re mainly being lost in the areas controlling impulses, risk taking, and self control. Lastly, the author says does “planning” mean the same thing for a thirteen year old as it means for an adult he says this to try and make us wonder does a kid think the same as an adult when it come to certain situation. Thompson’s
Juveniles are aware of their actions, unless they have a psychological disorder even if that includes life in prison without parole, or if the juvenile has a brutal childhood. The general argument made by Paul Thompson in his work, Startling Finds on Teenage Brains, is that as teens grow, they are developing mentally as well. More specifically, Thompson argues that teens act a certain way because of changes in their brain. He claims, “With repeated brain scans of kids from three to twenty, we pieced together “movies” showing how brains grow and change”(Thompson). Thompson states that studies have shown that the brain has changes when being three to twenty years of age.
For the past years there has been a debate on whether juveniles should be tried as life without parole or life with parole. In my opinion juveniles who commit first or second degree murder should not receive a mandatory sentence to life without parole. Although the juveniles are underage they are well informed of what’s right and what’s wrong, but some of them have difficulty understanding of what they are doing at the moment of the crime because they are angry and act before thinking clearly. I agree with the majority of supreme court justices who believe that mandatory life sentences are unconstitutional, unfair and inhumane because juveniles are immature, their brain is not completely developed, and they are unaware of long term impact
The Supreme Court directly stated that, “We therefore hold that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” (Miller v Alabama). Miller v Alabama is a landmark case in the juvenile justice system. It is a landmark case because it helps establish that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life in prison without the opportunity of parole, regardless of the crime they committed (Miller v Alabama). With cases like Miller v Alabama and Graham v Florida, the Supreme Court is emphasizing that juveniles have the time and capacity to change and develop their
Crimes are happening around us whether we pay attention to them or not. Those crimes as dangerous as murder are committed by all ages but should younger criminal in their juvenile age received the same punishment as older criminals. On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles committed murder could not be sentenced to life in prison because it violates the Eighth Amendment.(On-Demand Writing Assignment Juvenile Justice) Advocates on the concurring side believes that mandatory life in prison is wrong and should be abolish. However, the dissenting side believe that keeping the there should be a life in prison punishment for juvenile who commit heinous crime regardless of their age.
Supreme Court reviewed the cases of Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson who were both convicted with committing capital murder at the age of fourteen. Firstly, all defendants are allowed to argue that their punishment violated the Eighth Amendment. According to www.verdict.justia.com, “ On a theory that Miller and Jackson were entitled to individualized sentencing, they were denied the opportunity to argue the relevance of these mitigating factors to their proper punishment in an attempt to persuade their judges that the sentence of LWOP was too harsh.” Specifically, this indicates that the accused people were not allowed to argue that their punishment had violated the Eighth Amendment. Secondly, age matters when deciding the consequence for the convicted criminals.
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that it is immoral to give juveniles life sentences, even if they commit a crime as serious as murder, because it is a cruel and unusual punishment. This has been an issue in America as teenagers are often treated as adults in court due to a belief that their crimes warrant a harsh punishment. Many believe that these kids should not be given such major sentences because they are still immature and do not have the self control that adults do. I agree that juveniles do not deserve life sentences because they put less thought and planning into these crimes and they often are less malicious than adults. The article “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” explains that the teenagers lose brain tissue that is responsible for self control and impulses (Thompson 7).
Juveniles should not receive the death penalty. The frontal lobe is not completely developed until the early twenties. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. There is plenty of time for rehabilitation. Therefore, minors should not be given the death penalty
When people commit crimes, there should be disciplined no matter what. Juveniles need to learn that their behaviors have consequences. Why should kids be given any less of a punishment for committing the same crime? According to one author, “Taking a life is murder regardless of the age of the offender, and the penalties to be imposed must not discriminate. After all, the victim’s life will never be returned, and the family will permanently lose their loved one” (“7 Top Pros and Cons of Juveniles Being Tried As Adults”).
Juveniles Justice Juveniles who are criminals being sentenced to life without parole can be shocking to some people. I believe if a juvenile is able to commit a crime, then they are able to do the time. The article “Startling finds on Teenage Brains” talks about how the brain can be different from the time you are teens to the time you are an adult. After, considering both sides on juvenile justice it is clear that juveniles should face life without parole because they did the crime so they can do the time. Also I believe the juvenile’s age should not influence the sentence and the punishment give.