Nathaniel Brazill was a young teenager who commited the 2nd degree murder of his teacher, Barry Grunow. Brazill then got sentenced for 35 years in 2000, for committing a murder. 35 years. As Nathaniel was only 14 years old, and committed a second- degree murder, psychologists said that, “ Aks his age progresses, he will have very little recollection of the details of the crime that he committed and the remorse that he felt then.” As knowing that he did the murder unintentionally, he should not have been sentenced to jail, especially not 35 years. Moreover, there is no way to know if the crime committed was by force. One might feel bad that if a young teen was in prison several years. Although, as a young teen, he should not have been sentenced for it, for that long. One could be in serious trouble for committing a murder, but not sentenced for thirty five years.Therefore, young teens who commit crimes should not be tried as adults in courts of law, …show more content…
They say that “Crimes are crimes, they should learn their lesson, and should be isolated from others so that they do not influence their friends into doing what they did.” Adults should try to understand why the teen did such a thing instead of just saying, “A crime is a crime”, “They should be thrown into prison!”, there could be reason behind it. It isn’t right to just say that. People also say that “they have to learn their lesson.” Yes, they do, but not punishing them for something, that they did not do in purpose. In other words, a person cannot learn something if they know that, the crime was not intentional. Additionally, individuals also say that, “they should be isolated from other individuals so that they do not influence them into doing what they did”, yes, it is agreeable. They should be homeschooled, or grounded, in place of being in a life- regretting cellar. Hence, young teens should be sentenced for committing violent