On Punishment and Teen killers In the fiction article “ On Punishment and Teen Killers” Jennifer Jenkins argues and reviews the position that the author has according debate about teens and crimes. She believes that a lot of teenager committed have serious crime. She’s also, argues that development brain are not reason for crime. She is also against advocates that are against the JLWOP.which means Juvenile Life Without Parole, At the beginning of the article she was youngest sister and her husband murdered in Chicago, offender who testified at his trial “ thrill kill” that he just want to “ see what it would feel like to shoot someone”.
The article “On Punishment and Teen Killers” written by Jennifer Jenkins is an article with very weak ethos. The author argues that teens who commit heinous crimes should receive life without the possibility of parole and that the victims rights should be considered. The author is a victim of a crime committed by a teen, her pregnant sister was brutally murdered by a teen gunman who wanted to “see what it felt like to shoot someone” (2). By bringing her sister into the paper the author lowers her credibility because she is emotionally connected to the case and has an obvious biased opinion. This leads to the readers to question her reliability on an unbiased opinion in the article.
In the article “On Punishment and Teen Killers” by Jennifer Jenkins, the author shares her thoughts on teen killers and their lives after committing crimes. Throughout the article she also goes through the analysis of the punishment. To summarize, Jenkins starts off by sharing a quote that also shares her opinion on how people act on their own whether they’re influenced or not. As the article goes on she includes her personal experience on how a teen killer murdered her family where she also reveals that she is biased. With research that she might’ve done she implied and backed up the idea that crimes aren’t on impulse sometimes.
In the article it states, “The court said that minors who commit terrible crimes are less responsible than adults: They are less mature, more susceptible to peer pressure, and their personalities are not yet fully formed.” In this quote the author is reasoning against life without parole because they are less mature and not fully developed. Although all crimes deserve proper punishment, juveniles should not receive life without parole because they are still developing and this punishment leaves no room for a second chance
On the opposite spectrum is, Jennifer Jenkins with the weakest ethos; which is demonstrated in her article “On Punishment and Teen Killers.” Jenkins first starts off with her weal credentials of being a highschool teacher and following it with a weaker claim to support her credentials, “As a high school teacher, I have worked lovingly with teens all my life and I understand how hard it is to accept the reality that a 16 or 17 year old is capable of forming such requisite criminal intent. ”(4) Saying that one works with a subject meaning that they have a better understanding does not seem to even compare to a person who went to a university and have a major in the previously stated subject. Her attempt at “credentials” of why kids should not
In the book Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson, who is an attorney, guides us through his life in Alabama and how he helps defend innocent, poor people and children on death row who were wrongly convicted. Nearly 44,000 youth are incarcerated in juvenile justice facilities. Currently an estimated 250,000 youth are tried, sentenced, or incarcerated as adults every year across the United States. While some may argue that young adult offenders should be tried and punished as adults to ensure that their actions do not reoccur, the United States Justice Systems should implement rehabilitation and less harsh punishments for younger offenders to fully develop and mature.
In this article,”On Punishment and Teen Killers”, by jennifer Jenkins, explains that juveniles are getting violent and that whatever is influencing them is doing a bad thing to the teens. Teens from probably around 13 to 18 or older are ones to commit murders and are either sentenced to jail for life or probably gotten rid of. This article is also about how teens probably sometimes react when they commit a crime and the penalties that they are charged with. Teens get influenced by games or watch they technically watch and start doing what they are not supposed to. Jenkins has good reasons at times on how she thinks about the teens punishments and how they should be punished.
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
Have you ever thought if a young teen going to adult prison for committing a crime, like murder or homicidal thoughts. The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who committed murder could not be sentenced to life in prison because it violates the Eighth Amendment’s. On the other, hand four justices strongly disagreed, arguing that mandatory sentences reflected the will of American society. Two years ago I saw on t.v how young and wicked these young kids are in a documentary. A teenager probably the age of 14 killed a girl the same age with a shovel, banging her on the head repeatedly out in their garden.
In the article “On Punishment and Teen Killers” published by the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange on Aug 2,2011 the author, Jennifer Jenkins, points out how teen killers should be tried as adults for crimes committed at an adult level. Jenkins states that “... I understand how hard it is to accept the reality that a 16 or 17 year old is capable of forming such requisite criminal intent.” If a the teen intended to kill someone then they should be locked up, but if that was not the intention then they should get the help necessary instead of being locked
The article “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences” argues that children in prison need to be given a chance to mature and be rehabilitated (Garinger 9). Because these killers likely committed these crimes on impulse, they would often realize after the fact that they were wrong to do such an action. Therefore, when they are released, they will be more careful and think about their actions before committing. If they are given a life sentence, they will never be given this chance to fix their life. Older people who commit murders are less likely to learn from their mistakes since they put more thought into the killing than adolescents
Juveniles who commit a major crime (think of murder) might be let out earlier than an adult who also commits because they are in the juvenile system. “Violent crime rates and juvenile crime have been in a steady decline over the past 20 years; however, reforms to restore the juvenile court system to its original vision have not been as swift” (Marsha Levick). This evidence is important because it shows the importance of the Criminal Justice System and how it protects the
Juveniles who commit violent crimes have to serve time for what they did with no questions asked because that’s real justice. The opposition’s evidence would be how the brain doesn’t fully develop until the mid 20s; how kids don’t have full control of their decision making and often make poor mistakes. But murder is murder, whether they’re kids or adults. They have to plan out what they want to do and how.
Based on strong textual evidence and corresponding research it is clear that mandatory life sentence for juveniles who commit murder is unfair because juveniles are immature, cannot remove themselves from a toxic home environment, and is
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.
