The majority of Supreme Court cases that result in the death penalty are mostly to protect people from these people who can go out into the world and hurt others because they have been released instead of kept in prison. Most of the children who are sentenced to these life sentences have committed murder that we would normally not believe a child their age could do. The children who commit these crimes are well aware of what is wrong and what is right or else a lot more kids would be committing crimes. The children who are sentenced to shorter sentences run the risk of being the same without having some sort of counseling, they could grow up to be criminals, and the children could influence others to do similar crimes if they are released. …show more content…
In the article “On Punishment and Teen Killers” by Jennifer Jenkins the author explains the murder of her younger sister and how “She begged for the life of her unborn child as he shot her.” The killer of her sister showed no remorse while committing murder and that is something seen in psychopathic killers, whom never change their ways. Calling a child a psychopath is a giant claim that serves to show how a child that has already committed a crime this severe is not likely to change. In the same article Jenkins goes on to explain how she says “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.” Jenkins has worked with and knows that even they are capable of committing these harsh crimes at their age. The reality of this is that kids are capable of doing things that adults do not believe they do. This all goes to prove how these kids should not be let out into the world with the mental stability they have since they may as well go out and convince others to join