This week’s reading discusses how Larry and his fellow inmates created their own adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, and presented it to atrisk youth. Their adaptation, Tybalt Must Die, “...focused on the peer pressure that can push a good kid like Romeo into murder” (193). The prisoners go on to share how they each have to serve very extensive sentences, some life sentences, for crimes that they committed as youths. Larry, who committed murder at the age of seventeen, talked about how he received a “...sentence of life without the possibility of parole” (202). This means that Larry will never have the opportunity to get out of prison. This brought up an interesting subject for me; juveniles that are sentenced to life in prison. It seems crazy that children as young as fourteen years old could receive sentences upwards of 199 years (202). Or even Larry, who will spend the rest of his life in prison for a crime he committed when he was seventeen. There have been numerous arguments against youths being charged life sentences without parole, such as in Larry’s case. In an article entitled, “Should Teen Murderers Receive Life Without Parole”, Andrew Cohen writes that, “To the Equal Justice Initiative (a nonprofit organization dedicated to raising legal questions), “life sentences without parole” for young teenagers, even those convicted of the most heinous crimes, are actually “sentences of death in prison”, [which] is both cruel and unusual”. Cohen is saying that, a youth sentenced to life in prison without parole is basically the same as a sentence to die in prison. There is also the popular argument that youths aren’t as mentally mature as adults and shouldn’t be tried as adults. On the other side of the argument though, youths can and do commit crimes that are just as bad and the same as what adults commit. So why should or shouldn’t youths (those under the age of 18) receive the same sentences as adults? Do you believe that youths should receive life sentences without the possibility of parole? Why or why not? Cohen, Andrew. "Should Teen Murderers Receive Life Without Parole?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 19 Mar. 2012. Web. 01 Apr. 2016. .
4/10/2016 12:37:27 pm
Honestly, I do not believe youths should be sentenced to life without parole. The reason is because if that person eventually decides to fight for parole, that shows a level of understanding of the extent of his or her crime committed. It also shows maturity. Take Newton for example, he did not decide to try and fight for parole until this program with Laura Bates. He finally realized there is more to life and he also discussed why he did what he did. Newton understood that he is much more than just some dangerous prisoner. For ANYONE to realize they are worth much more takes a lot of courage.
Shang Yang
4/11/2016 03:33:37 pm
Adolescent behaves accordingly to their anger and mood. They tend to act without thinking; acting with their feelings rather than their logic reasoning. When this action is taken, they completely ignore the possible consequences that may happen to their bright future. Adolescent is too rational to know what can possibly benefit or destroys their life. They will make the best solution that they think will save themselves from trouble. But in reality, the choices that they make will back-stab them right in the back. Letting them wipe all the troubles alone in a solitary room. In the article by Tony Cox, "Brain Maturity Extends Well Beyond Teen Years," claims that research declares the age of a fully developed brain is 25 years old. According to scientists the age of 18 is not a fully developed brain, but in the laws, the age of 18 is considered as a legal adult. I think that a child who is at the age of 17, going on 18, should know what he or do is doing. They should be maturely enough to understand and distinguish what their actions may cause to their own future. When I was still in high school, I know what is right and what is wrong. I choose options that are the best for me; not committing any wrong doings. If the adolescent has caused a severe crime, they should go to court and get the custody that they deserve. Being lock in jail does not classify one as a bad person, but as a person who changed their world by a simple mistake they made in their early life.
Mikayla Lockard
4/18/2016 01:14:31 pm
Wow those are some questions that really make you think. I do think that the youth, kids under the age of 18, should have to face the same consequences. If they’re able to make those decisions at that age they should be able to face the consequences at that age as well. Kids make choices everyday, yes they might be smaller than most but none the less they are choices. It seems like people have forgotten that what happens after those choices are made is what shapes people into who they are. Good choices, bad choices, good consequences, and bad ones all have an effect on us. If people aren’t given punishments or rewards they won’t continue or discontinue what they’re doing. In a way consequences for humans are like punishments or treats for a dog. When you dog pees on the floor and you’re potty training it you normally put its face in the pee but if they go to the bathroom where they’re supposed to you give them a treat. Same system works for humans bathroom in your underwear equals a punishment but bathroom in the toilet equals a treat. Let’s move a little deeper and say if a dog attacks a human then they normally get put down. Well if a human attacks a human they normally go to jail. The age of the dog doesn’t matter so why should the age of the human matter; choices are choices and they all have consequences to show us what is right versus what is wrong.
Danielle Izaguirre
4/21/2016 10:47:37 pm
I personally believe that juveniles under the age of eighteen should not be tried as adults. Kids are kids, and they tend to do things on impulse without thinking of the consequences'. I am sure that maybe a few kids know what could happen, but I mean juveniles feel as if they are invincible. They think they can do anything and nothing bad will happen. A juveniles brain is not fully developed/matured, therefore, juveniles do not fully understand what could happen with their actions. However, the juveniles who do commit crimes should still receive punishment but in the juvenile judicial system and not in the adult system. Or they can be placed on probation or placed in some sort of program that could help make them understand what the real bad consequences' or results of their actions could have been, and they should be told what kind of adult sentences they would have received.
Jacob Rohn
5/6/2016 01:13:40 pm
Children are taught right from wrong as they grow up. Society has already dictated a strict wrong-from-right mentality that people must follow. Every day children learn how to be an adult and how they should grow up. I believe if a teenager commits an "adult crime" they should have to serve out their punishment. They are old enough to determine whether or not something will get them in trouble. If they are capable of committing a crime considered mature in nature they are more than responsible for their actions. With the exception of young children who might not know right from wrong, youth are still taught the rules and are expected to follow them. Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2016
Categories |