Analyzing Paul Thompson's Article Startling Find On Teenage Minds

They May Seem Young But Not Always Throughout recent years in the United States there has been several homicide cases involving juveniles under the age of eighteen. At such a young and rather undeveloped age, they are considered as minors however, in the eyes of the justice system nearly all are punished as adult victims and given life imprisonment without parole. These decisions have unintentionally ignited a dreadful controversial debate across America. In the following articles Startling Find on Teenage Brains” by Paul Thompson, “On Punishment and Teen Killers” by Jennifer Jenkins, “ and “Why a 10-Year-Old in Pennsylvania Can Be Tried for Murder As an Adult” by Anne Steele. All three authors make it clear that all Juveniles who committed

In his article, “Startling Finds on Teenage Brains” Thompson exposes the shocking discovery that teens during puberty, experience a massive loss of brain tissue which are only in the areas of controlling impulses, risk-taking, and self-control. Thus, Thompson explains that due to these losses, teens and juveniles are vastly immature and underdeveloped when handling their thoughts and desires. Despite the fact that he officially discovered a biological difference, nevertheless Thompson shares his opinion about juveniles, “Even though normal teens [and juveniles] are experiencing a wildfire of tissue loss in their brains, that does not remove their accountability” (10). What Thompson is really saying here is that although teens are biologically different and immature, it should not be an “exit ticket” for a crime they have committed. In addition, not all teens are equal, as some have proven to use their intelligence and skills to carefully plan a murder over others who have unintentionally done so mistakenly. It is these intelligent juveniles who should be given life imprisonment without parole since they will pose a serious threat in the future when they become “fully developed”. Similarly, several juveniles confess that they committed

Even if one had committed a crime, a portion of the public would feel obligated to give life imprisonment without parole to him or her just because they are a child. In the article, “Why a 10-Year-Old in Pennsylvania Can Be Tried for Murder As an Adult” by Anne Steele demonstrates that children can be tried as adults under legal provisions in every state. Steele writes, “The Juvenile law’s goal is to rehabilitate and serve the minor’s best interest”, on the other hand “in the adult system the goal is to punish”. For instance, in Pennsylvania, a 10-year-old boy became angry losing his temper and killed a 90-year-old woman to death by choking her with a cane. The boy was charged as an adult because a “criminal homicide” crime is excluded from juvenile law in Pennsylvania. As Steele writes, “Statutory law can require certain serious crimes, such as murder, be charged in adult court even if the defendant is a minor” (9). What Steele is trying to argue here is that there are limits to which a juvenile can commit and still get back into society after rehabilitation. If the juvenile does a life-threatening action such as a homicide he would learn the mistake he made through a serious consequence of life imprisonment without parole. Finally, it is evident that if juveniles commit serious crimes they should be punished to learn and realize what they have done wrong in