I think children should not be charged has an adult for many reasons. A child can be brought up in a bad or abusive environment and develop behaviors to defend his or hers self. The 170 year sentence for Nathan Jordan is just utterly ridiculous; the boy did not cause any physical harm to that person in the car. When a child is going to be sentence to life imprisonment, his or her should have their upbringing background look at by the court. Before a life sentence is handed down on a child there should be questions ask like, why did this child develop this behavior, and what can we do to fix it?
I believe that juvenile cases should be determined on a case by case basis as to whether they should be tried as an adult. Whether a juvenile is being processed through the juvenile system or adult justice system, they will have the chance to claim they committed the offense they are being charged with in self defense. I too believe that children can develop particular behaviors due to their childhood but they also have to abide by laws just as everyone else does. I too agree that the background of juveniles should be taken into consideration when determining punishment and whether or not the juvenile would benefit more from rehabilitation rather than confinement. The case presented in the blog post does indeed seem very extreme, but we are not provided with all of the charges and details of each of the cases. Crystal 123
I agree with this statement. The harshness, intent, and number of times the juvenile has affended plays a big role in the decision of trying them as an adult. I also agree with the part about the living conditions, like their home and environments.
You are completely correct about this case being ridiculous. I also think that their background and history should be looked at before giving him that harsh of a sentence. Why can't we take a step back and say "how can we deal with this situation in a proper way to where he still may get to live his life in society?" I feel sorry for this kid and I would never wish this on anybody. Ashley 123
I feel that this is an unfortunate situation but it does make me wonder if there is more behind the story. A 170 year sentence for aggravated robbery, motor vehicle theft, and possession of a weapon seem pretty extreme. But we do not know all of the details either. I do not feel that there should be certain crimes that determine whether a juvenile will be charged as a juvenile or adult. I think that each case should be examined thoroughly and determine whether the juvenile is competent enough to be tried as an adult. Children do not all learn and comprehend at the same rate. If a juvenile has committed murder and is fully aware of his actions, then I believe he/she should be tried in adult court. Incarceration at an adult facility can have damaging affects on adult so the affects can be even worse for adolescents. I do have respect for the efforts behind the get tough laws but am not completely convinced that they are doing as much good as thought. While there are young adults out there who have been ‘trapped’ by the system due to the states having rights over juvenile laws, our juvenile justice system is a lot fairer than what it use to be.
I think they were trying to make an example out of him. You are exactly right children do not learn and comprehend at the same rate. I agree if a child commits murder and is fully aware of what he has done he should be tried, but in adult court I am not sure on.They are still a child and the adult system in my opinion is not the answer; I believe he should face a harsh punishment but it should be focused on rehabilitation and finding out what the reasons behind their actions were. I believe when we send these youths to adult jails, when they get out they will know more about violence then they did before they went in. Lindsey123
What are they doing to our youths? 170 years for aggravated robbery, motor vehicle theft and possession of a weapon is a little extreme in my opinion. I understand that the courts are trying to make an example out of him, but get real that is a little much. Youths need to be punished for crimes they commit but like the article said as well as our book youths brains are not fully developed. The court system is putting labels on our children and to me I think that is going to cause them to re-offend because they will not be able to get a job because they have that label over their heads for the rest of their life. The court system needs to evaluate these children and find the root of the problems that these children are facing. A slap on the wrist is not the answer, some serious consequences these children need but not to be thrown in the adult system. These children are not adults and should not be treated like one. Lindsey123
I completely agree with the negative impact labeling our youths can have on their future. In my opinion, so many things are turned into criminal justice problems when in reality they are matters that may be better addressed with a program or counseling/rehab. Ruining someone's life for a non-violent crime is simply counter productive.
I disagree Children are dumb when they stupid crimes, its what they get I think they should be trialed as an adult. They seems like they deserve it. When they get out it will make them believe better in themselves of not doing any crime anymore.
I really enjoyed this article and feel that it raised many good points. I do, for the most part, agree with its premise that children should not be tried as adults. All things must be considered. The background and prior history of the child, the circumstances of the crime, and the injury/ damage to the victim must be considered. This article made such a good point when it talked about the long term effects of being introduced to the adult justice at such a young age. Many will never be able to have successful careers because of their records (as we saw at Summit of Hope) .Then when they have no way of making money and end up selling drugs, everyone looks at that as if it confirms their original notion of how bad the child was… When in reality society’s reaction (labeling theory) to the criminal record could be what pushed . However, that being said if a child callously murders in cold blood; that is a different story. In certain cases, precautions need to be taken for society’s safety; and a teenager that could callously murder would be very likely to kill again.
casey chance i Feel Heart broken reading this that this is what america has come to, where we feel it is acceptabl to slap our kids with 170 year pushments for simply pushing the envelope. I am not to differnt from Jordan, except that when i got in trouble as a adolescent the System didnt stick it to me, they recognized that with a little proper direction and discipline then there money would be used much more effectively than by locking me up and throwing away the key. and becaus I was not stigmatized by being labled a criminal or a chronic offender and instead was shown how to be an effective citizen, I was able to learn and have since help others progress through many other their shortcomings. We have to find a much smarter approach to redirecting todays youth with out criminallizing 7/8 of the population doing so. I belive that this is exactly why police officers should be given more discretion and say so as to how to address unruley children whom
in society today children are committing more serious crimes at a younger age which is forcing our court system to be harsher on punishments. i do believe that kids deserve a little bit more leeway because they are children and they arent fully developed yet. but after the second or third serious crime they participate in they should be transferred to the adult court and be tried there. Usually the child committs one offense and then never comes back, but the small percentage that does may need a little extra help and should recieve some type of treatment or therapy that is needed to remove the individual from the criminal behaivor.
I agree with this statement. The harshness, intent, and number of times the juvenile has affended plays a big role in the decision of trying them as an adult. I also agree with the part about the living conditions, like their home and environments.
I like the court system I think its right to treat childrens as adults to give harsh punishments so later in the futher they manage not doing any crime again.
well to be more educated on the purpose we have other situations for the juveniles who get these crazy punishments, while adults only get half the punishment what they have committed the crime as an adult lets be fair here juvenile don't have the mentality as as adults do.
Many people have opposite views on trying juveniles as an adult. Some think that it is not fair to try them as adults, the reason being their brain, depending on their age, may not be fully developed so they might not have the same common sense or knowledge as grown person. The others, including I, think that they are perfectly aware of the crimes they are committing. However, they should only be tried as adults for certain crimes, which pertains to the harshness or intent of their actions. The prosecuter can decide whether he or she wants to try the juvenile as an adult or not, if the opportunity is permitted.
As young criminologist I understand why they give him a harsh punishment trying to teach Nathan a lesson, the judge should have look at his record better than just giving Nathan the book and throwing the key away. Since Nathan had a hard life his mother an addict, troubled with the law and in and out of the group homes. they should have use other alternatives to rehabilitate the the seventeen year old. if Nathan wanted to he can receive a writ of habeus to fight his case to lessen his sentence.
I think the punishment was to severe for what he did. According to our text there are criteria set concerning waiver of the jurisdictions:1) seriousness of the offense to the community, 2) whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violet, or willful manner 3) whether the alleged offense was committed against persons or against property 4) the prosecutive merit of the complain 5) the sophistication and maturity of the juvenile 6) the record and previous history of the juvenile and 7) prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation.
In reading the article, I don't see how these guidelines were even considered. I agree with previous posts that we don't know all of the details of the case, but I don't see the punishment fits the crime in this case of Nathan Jordan. I think all states need to have the say type of criteria set forth by the Supreme Court mentioned above. Sherry123
I agree this child was certainly thrown away like yesterdays trash. It's unfortunate that he isn't getting a chance to be rehabilitated. In this case the prosecutor seemed to really want to stick it to him. I agree that his crimes were escalating and he did need to be punished, but I think this was to much. Debbie123
This is exactly how I feel. He obviously wasn't learning from his first mistakes and that is when perhaps punishment needs to come into play ... but what an insane sentence he received. Your description of "thrown away like yesterdays trash" is exactly what it is ... hopefully it's cases like this that will bring light to where the juvenile justice system is going wrong. Vanessa123
I understand they thought Nathan's crimes were getting increasingly serious and he needed to be taught a lesson. What kind of lesson will he learn if he spends his entire adult life behind bars? There are some juvenile offenders that should certainly be transferred to adult court depending on the seriousness of their crimes. I don't agree that this was one of those cases. We all heard the news of Jeffrey Kallister slamming into the back of a motorcycle and killing both riders. He was sentenced to 8 years in prison with two years mandatory probation afterwards. Now this is a grown man who certainly knew the consequences of driving drunk, and there should be harsher penalties for hit and runs than was handed down in this case! Debbie123
Well said. I agree that this individual should of been sentenced 170 years in prison. I personally know an individual that was in a gang when he was 16 and shot aother person and killed them. They got sentenced to 9 years in prison and served a little less than four years before he was released. This individual had been in trouble many times before killing someone and only got a 9 year sentence in prison. This individual also learned his lessons while being in prison and has never been in trouble with the law again and is now married with 5 children. This is a good example of how no matter how serious the crime a juvenile can learn their lessons and change their ways with sentences of way less than 170 years in prison! Kelsi123
All I have to say is that is absolutely ridiculous for them to try a juvenile as an adult when they have not committed any crimes that injured or killed anyone. 170 years ... common now! Especially for the fact that most of those crimes were committed before they were even 18 years old. If that were the case, my life would have been ruined for the petty teenage stuff I did. This poor kid and although I he committed crimes, he should have been dealt with differently. How many of us can say that we are drastically different all the way around from the time we were 13 to 18 to our early and late twenties. Every single one of us I can bet. And biology also has a lot to do with it because our brains are not even fully developed until our early twenties, especially the part that controls decision making, judgement, goal setting, and foreseeing consequences ... to name a few. More so our prison systems are not the place for a child/teenager. Conditions are horrible and the lifestyle even worse. Once someone is into the prison system they are most likely to commit again ... once a juvenile has such a record and the exposure they get in there, they are more likely to have a self-defeating attitude on life and are ruined forever. Only in rare situations, do they make a complete turn around after leaving the prison system. In my opinion, juveniles should only be tried in adult court for horrible crimes that involve injuring or killing another. Vanessa123
I would agree, the juvenile did not kill anyone. Whether he has been in trouble in the past or not, he should never of been given a 170 year sentence. I have never heard of any criminal serving a 170 year sentence. If they would have given the juvenile a more reasonable sentence such as 10 years if not less, he could of realized that the crimes he committed in the past is not right and could of possible changed his ways and been a good person when he was released. My heart goes out to this individual and his family. I could not imagin being sentences that many years at such a young age or watching a juvenile family member be locked away for the rest of his life for mistakes that were made when they were juveniles. It is absolutely ridiculous!!!! Well said Vanessa!!!! Kelsi123
In my opinion, he did not kill anybody so why should be serving that many years? Maybe I am wrong but I have never heard of anyone serving 170 years for a first offense robbery, even as an adult. I do not think that what this kid did is right whatsoever. If Colorado's law states that they do not try a juvenile as an adult, how does this even happen? Kids make mistakes without an understanding of the true consequences of there actions. It seems to me that the system is going to ruin his life, and basically end it at a very young age. Yes he did commit the crime and should be held accountable. Charged as an adult or not the point for a first offense(not including murder, rape, etc...)should be to pay your time and hopefully grow up and learn something while serving and eventually being a positive in society. Ashley123
I agree it really all depends on the situation, the offender, and his or her history. I think for the most part children should be tried as juveniles, but there are the times when I believe that children can commit acts like rape or murder and then I believe you charge them as adults. Carson 123
It makes me sad to hear that he was serving a 170 year sentence for aggravated robbery, motor vehicle theft, and possession of a weapon. I do not believe that he should of been tried in adult court for those kind of charges. I believe that an juvenile should only be tried in adult court for charges such as murder and rape or in other words very violent crimes that result in hurting another individual. Another charge in which I believe it is okay to try a juvenile in adult court is child molestation. I do not believe that crimes such as motor vehicle theft and possession of a weapon should be tried in adult court. Even with him being tried in adult court, I do not believe it was fair to sentence him to 170 years in prison. I have always been a strong believer that people can change. I have been in trouble one time in the past as a juvenile and after recieving and completing my consequences, I am no longer that same juvenile and would never do anything of the sort to get in trouble like I did in the past. The juvenile that recieved 170 years in prison was not given a second chance at life to make the right choices and as a juvenile I do not believe that it was fair to that juvenile or his family in any way. Kelsi123
I totally agree with you that people can change, if they are given the opportunity to. I think that a juvenile court is for determining the best way to rehabilitate young offenders. He wasn't given that chance when he was sentenced for 170 years.
I believe that the sentence that that kid received was way too harsh. One thing to point out though, is that he did use a gun, and that if the lady had not cooperated with him, what would he have done? We don't know what was going on in his head at the time. He could have decided to shoot her. I think really that the only time it is okay to waive a juvenile to the adult court is when the crime was particularly violent (murder, for example), they have absolutely no remorse for their actions even after a full mental evaluation and counseling, and if they are a danger to society. Sending a kid to an adult prison should only be done as a last resort. Juvenile and adult courts should be kept at two, distinct forms of court. One to determine what is best to rehabilitate the juvenile and one to punish and to keep society protected from criminals. Like what Sarah Bryer said in this article; "[Adult] prisons are not set up to rehabilitate youth; [they provide] no education, no help and no services".
I think that it depends on the case if the child is charged as adult. There are so many good points, but lets be real if you kill someone and you are a juvenile and you are not charged as an adult. Its showing kids now a days that if you hate some one you can kill them and if you are under a certain age you might just get probation.
I see the corrections system in Cali. is trying to fix the overcrowding issue. However the problem I feel the corrections system has as a whole is that if they can’t evolve with the rest of the criminal justice system it will never change. The only real drastic changes the corrections system has made is from the Pennsylvania and the New York systems in the nineteenth century. To add to my point is that we study to evolve or views in criminology to better understand the causes, of crime and now know the extent of most, but don’t utilize what we learned from it to our corrections system to better improve the human being. That for me is like learning what we know about child development and not utilize it to improve the future of our children, or better yet lets go with the juvenile delinquents. To back what I’m concerning is that we study the root cause (positivism, social disorganization, strain theories, and etc.) but don’t commit as a whole through the evolution of the corrections system. In the same, we also send these offenders back to their subculture without the PROPER tools and psychological treatment they will need to lead a socially acceptable standard of living. Which in turn will never really change the outcome of the revolving door issue or the fact that we will never control crime altogether. But we could change how we view corrections as we have changed our views on crime itself. Terry R.123
I think children should not be charged has an adult for many reasons. A child can be brought up in a bad or abusive environment and develop behaviors to defend his or hers self. The 170 year sentence for Nathan Jordan is just utterly ridiculous; the boy did not cause any physical harm to that person in the car. When a child is going to be sentence to life imprisonment, his or her should have their upbringing background look at by the court. Before a life sentence is handed down on a child there should be questions ask like, why did this child develop this behavior, and what can we do to fix it?
ReplyDeleteI believe that juvenile cases should be determined on a case by case basis as to whether they should be tried as an adult. Whether a juvenile is being processed through the juvenile system or adult justice system, they will have the chance to claim they committed the offense they are being charged with in self defense. I too believe that children can develop particular behaviors due to their childhood but they also have to abide by laws just as everyone else does. I too agree that the background of juveniles should be taken into consideration when determining punishment and whether or not the juvenile would benefit more from rehabilitation rather than confinement. The case presented in the blog post does indeed seem very extreme, but we are not provided with all of the charges and details of each of the cases.
DeleteCrystal 123
i agree that kids may grow up in a bad home but when they start to committ multiple serious crimes it is time to charge the individual as an adult.
DeleteI agree with this statement. The harshness, intent, and number of times the juvenile has affended plays a big role in the decision of trying them as an adult. I also agree with the part about the living conditions, like their home and environments.
DeleteYou are completely correct about this case being ridiculous. I also think that their background and history should be looked at before giving him that harsh of a sentence. Why can't we take a step back and say "how can we deal with this situation in a proper way to where he still may get to live his life in society?" I feel sorry for this kid and I would never wish this on anybody.
DeleteAshley 123
I feel that this is an unfortunate situation but it does make me wonder if there is more behind the story. A 170 year sentence for aggravated robbery, motor vehicle theft, and possession of a weapon seem pretty extreme. But we do not know all of the details either. I do not feel that there should be certain crimes that determine whether a juvenile will be charged as a juvenile or adult. I think that each case should be examined thoroughly and determine whether the juvenile is competent enough to be tried as an adult. Children do not all learn and comprehend at the same rate. If a juvenile has committed murder and is fully aware of his actions, then I believe he/she should be tried in adult court. Incarceration at an adult facility can have damaging affects on adult so the affects can be even worse for adolescents. I do have respect for the efforts behind the get tough laws but am not completely convinced that they are doing as much good as thought. While there are young adults out there who have been ‘trapped’ by the system due to the states having rights over juvenile laws, our juvenile justice system is a lot fairer than what it use to be.
ReplyDeleteI think they were trying to make an example out of him. You are exactly right children do not learn and comprehend at the same rate. I agree if a child commits murder and is fully aware of what he has done he should be tried, but in adult court I am not sure on.They are still a child and the adult system in my opinion is not the answer; I believe he should face a harsh punishment but it should be focused on rehabilitation and finding out what the reasons behind their actions were. I believe when we send these youths to adult jails, when they get out they will know more about violence then they did before they went in.
DeleteLindsey123
What are they doing to our youths? 170 years for aggravated robbery, motor vehicle theft and possession of a weapon is a little extreme in my opinion. I understand that the courts are trying to make an example out of him, but get real that is a little much. Youths need to be punished for crimes they commit but like the article said as well as our book youths brains are not fully developed. The court system is putting labels on our children and to me I think that is going to cause them to re-offend because they will not be able to get a job because they have that label over their heads for the rest of their life. The court system needs to evaluate these children and find the root of the problems that these children are facing. A slap on the wrist is not the answer, some serious consequences these children need but not to be thrown in the adult system. These children are not adults and should not be treated like one.
ReplyDeleteLindsey123
I completely agree with the negative impact labeling our youths can have on their future. In my opinion, so many things are turned into criminal justice problems when in reality they are matters that may be better addressed with a program or counseling/rehab. Ruining someone's life for a non-violent crime is simply counter productive.
DeleteI disagree Children are dumb when they stupid crimes, its what they get I think they should be trialed as an adult. They seems like they deserve it. When they get out it will make them believe better in themselves of not doing any crime anymore.
DeleteHopefully he realizes what he did 170 years from now!!!
DeleteI really enjoyed this article and feel that it raised many good points. I do, for the most part, agree with its premise that children should not be tried as adults. All things must be considered. The background and prior history of the child, the circumstances of the crime, and the injury/ damage to the victim must be considered. This article made such a good point when it talked about the long term effects of being introduced to the adult justice at such a young age. Many will never be able to have successful careers because of their records (as we saw at Summit of Hope) .Then when they have no way of making money and end up selling drugs, everyone looks at that as if it confirms their original notion of how bad the child was… When in reality society’s reaction (labeling theory) to the criminal record could be what pushed . However, that being said if a child callously murders in cold blood; that is a different story. In certain cases, precautions need to be taken for society’s safety; and a teenager that could callously murder would be very likely to kill again.
ReplyDeletecasey chance
ReplyDeletei Feel Heart broken reading this that this is what america has come to, where we feel it is acceptabl to slap our kids with 170 year pushments for simply pushing the envelope. I am not to differnt from Jordan, except that when i got in trouble as a adolescent the System didnt stick it to me, they recognized that with a little proper direction and discipline then there money would be used much more effectively than by locking me up and throwing away the key. and becaus I was not stigmatized by being labled a criminal or a chronic offender and instead was shown how to be an effective citizen, I was able to learn and have since help others progress through many other their shortcomings. We have to find a much smarter approach to redirecting todays youth with out criminallizing 7/8 of the population doing so. I belive that this is exactly why police officers should be given more discretion and say so as to how to address unruley children whom
I agree and glad the system work on your side. Police officers should be given more discretion with juveniles, I'm totally on board with that.
Deletein society today children are committing more serious crimes at a younger age which is forcing our court system to be harsher on punishments. i do believe that kids deserve a little bit more leeway because they are children and they arent fully developed yet. but after the second or third serious crime they participate in they should be transferred to the adult court and be tried there. Usually the child committs one offense and then never comes back, but the small percentage that does may need a little extra help and should recieve some type of treatment or therapy that is needed to remove the individual from the criminal behaivor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. The harshness, intent, and number of times the juvenile has affended plays a big role in the decision of trying them as an adult. I also agree with the part about the living conditions, like their home and environments.
DeleteI like the court system I think its right to treat childrens as adults to give harsh punishments so later in the futher they manage not doing any crime again.
Deletewell to be more educated on the purpose we have other situations for the juveniles who get these crazy punishments, while adults only get half the punishment what they have committed the crime as an adult lets be fair here juvenile don't have the mentality as as adults do.
DeleteMany people have opposite views on trying juveniles as an adult. Some think that it is not fair to try them as adults, the reason being their brain, depending on their age, may not be fully developed so they might not have the same common sense or knowledge as grown person. The others, including I, think that they are perfectly aware of the crimes they are committing. However, they should only be tried as adults for certain crimes, which pertains to the harshness or intent of their actions. The prosecuter can decide whether he or she wants to try the juvenile as an adult or not, if the opportunity is permitted.
ReplyDeleteTeens should absolutely be tried as adults if they comiit adult crimes.
DeleteAs young criminologist I understand why they give him a harsh punishment trying to teach Nathan a lesson, the judge should have look at his record better than just giving Nathan the book and throwing the key away. Since Nathan had a hard life his mother an addict, troubled with the law and in and out of the group homes. they should have use other alternatives to rehabilitate the the seventeen year old. if Nathan wanted to he can receive a writ of habeus to fight his case to lessen his sentence.
ReplyDeleteI think the punishment was to severe for what he did. According to our text there are criteria set concerning waiver of the jurisdictions:1) seriousness of the offense to the community, 2) whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violet, or willful manner 3) whether the alleged offense was committed against persons or against property 4) the prosecutive merit of the complain 5) the sophistication and maturity of the juvenile 6) the record and previous history of the juvenile and 7) prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation.
ReplyDeleteIn reading the article, I don't see how these guidelines were even considered. I agree with previous posts that we don't know all of the details of the case, but I don't see the punishment fits the crime in this case of Nathan Jordan. I think all states need to have the say type of criteria set forth by the Supreme Court mentioned above. Sherry123
I agree this child was certainly thrown away like yesterdays trash. It's unfortunate that he isn't getting a chance to be rehabilitated. In this case the prosecutor seemed to really want to stick it to him. I agree that his crimes were escalating and he did need to be punished, but I think this was to much. Debbie123
DeleteThis is exactly how I feel. He obviously wasn't learning from his first mistakes and that is when perhaps punishment needs to come into play ... but what an insane sentence he received. Your description of "thrown away like yesterdays trash" is exactly what it is ... hopefully it's cases like this that will bring light to where the juvenile justice system is going wrong. Vanessa123
DeleteI understand they thought Nathan's crimes were getting increasingly serious and he needed to be taught a lesson. What kind of lesson will he learn if he spends his entire adult life behind bars? There are some juvenile offenders that should certainly be transferred to adult court depending on the seriousness of their crimes. I don't agree that this was one of those cases. We all heard the news of Jeffrey Kallister slamming into the back of a motorcycle and killing both riders. He was sentenced to 8 years in prison with two years mandatory probation afterwards. Now this is a grown man who certainly knew the consequences of driving drunk, and there should be harsher penalties for hit and runs than was handed down in this case! Debbie123
ReplyDeleteWell said. I agree that this individual should of been sentenced 170 years in prison. I personally know an individual that was in a gang when he was 16 and shot aother person and killed them. They got sentenced to 9 years in prison and served a little less than four years before he was released. This individual had been in trouble many times before killing someone and only got a 9 year sentence in prison. This individual also learned his lessons while being in prison and has never been in trouble with the law again and is now married with 5 children. This is a good example of how no matter how serious the crime a juvenile can learn their lessons and change their ways with sentences of way less than 170 years in prison! Kelsi123
DeleteAll I have to say is that is absolutely ridiculous for them to try a juvenile as an adult when they have not committed any crimes that injured or killed anyone. 170 years ... common now! Especially for the fact that most of those crimes were committed before they were even 18 years old. If that were the case, my life would have been ruined for the petty teenage stuff I did. This poor kid and although I he committed crimes, he should have been dealt with differently. How many of us can say that we are drastically different all the way around from the time we were 13 to 18 to our early and late twenties. Every single one of us I can bet. And biology also has a lot to do with it because our brains are not even fully developed until our early twenties, especially the part that controls decision making, judgement, goal setting, and foreseeing consequences ... to name a few. More so our prison systems are not the place for a child/teenager. Conditions are horrible and the lifestyle even worse. Once someone is into the prison system they are most likely to commit again ... once a juvenile has such a record and the exposure they get in there, they are more likely to have a self-defeating attitude on life and are ruined forever. Only in rare situations, do they make a complete turn around after leaving the prison system. In my opinion, juveniles should only be tried in adult court for horrible crimes that involve injuring or killing another. Vanessa123
ReplyDeleteI would agree, the juvenile did not kill anyone. Whether he has been in trouble in the past or not, he should never of been given a 170 year sentence. I have never heard of any criminal serving a 170 year sentence. If they would have given the juvenile a more reasonable sentence such as 10 years if not less, he could of realized that the crimes he committed in the past is not right and could of possible changed his ways and been a good person when he was released. My heart goes out to this individual and his family. I could not imagin being sentences that many years at such a young age or watching a juvenile family member be locked away for the rest of his life for mistakes that were made when they were juveniles. It is absolutely ridiculous!!!! Well said Vanessa!!!!
DeleteKelsi123
In my opinion, he did not kill anybody so why should be serving that many years? Maybe I am wrong but I have never heard of anyone serving 170 years for a first offense robbery, even as an adult. I do not think that what this kid did is right whatsoever. If Colorado's law states that they do not try a juvenile as an adult, how does this even happen? Kids make mistakes without an understanding of the true consequences of there actions. It seems to me that the system is going to ruin his life, and basically end it at a very young age. Yes he did commit the crime and should be held accountable. Charged as an adult or not the point for a first offense(not including murder, rape, etc...)should be to pay your time and hopefully grow up and learn something while serving and eventually being a positive in society.
ReplyDeleteAshley123
I agree it really all depends on the situation, the offender, and his or her history. I think for the most part children should be tried as juveniles, but there are the times when I believe that children can commit acts like rape or murder and then I believe you charge them as adults. Carson 123
ReplyDeleteIt makes me sad to hear that he was serving a 170 year sentence for aggravated robbery, motor vehicle theft, and possession of a weapon. I do not believe that he should of been tried in adult court for those kind of charges. I believe that an juvenile should only be tried in adult court for charges such as murder and rape or in other words very violent crimes that result in hurting another individual. Another charge in which I believe it is okay to try a juvenile in adult court is child molestation. I do not believe that crimes such as motor vehicle theft and possession of a weapon should be tried in adult court. Even with him being tried in adult court, I do not believe it was fair to sentence him to 170 years in prison. I have always been a strong believer that people can change. I have been in trouble one time in the past as a juvenile and after recieving and completing my consequences, I am no longer that same juvenile and would never do anything of the sort to get in trouble like I did in the past. The juvenile that recieved 170 years in prison was not given a second chance at life to make the right choices and as a juvenile I do not believe that it was fair to that juvenile or his family in any way.
ReplyDeleteKelsi123
I totally agree with you that people can change, if they are given the opportunity to. I think that a juvenile court is for determining the best way to rehabilitate young offenders. He wasn't given that chance when he was sentenced for 170 years.
Delete-Joy123
I believe that the sentence that that kid received was way too harsh. One thing to point out though, is that he did use a gun, and that if the lady had not cooperated with him, what would he have done? We don't know what was going on in his head at the time. He could have decided to shoot her. I think really that the only time it is okay to waive a juvenile to the adult court is when the crime was particularly violent (murder, for example), they have absolutely no remorse for their actions even after a full mental evaluation and counseling, and if they are a danger to society. Sending a kid to an adult prison should only be done as a last resort. Juvenile and adult courts should be kept at two, distinct forms of court. One to determine what is best to rehabilitate the juvenile and one to punish and to keep society protected from criminals. Like what Sarah Bryer said in this article; "[Adult] prisons are not set up to rehabilitate youth; [they provide] no education, no help and no services".
ReplyDelete-Joy123
I think that it depends on the case if the child is charged as adult. There are so many good points, but lets be real if you kill someone and you are a juvenile and you are not charged as an adult. Its showing kids now a days that if you hate some one you can kill them and if you are under a certain age you might just get probation.
ReplyDeleteharvaa123
I see the corrections system in Cali. is trying to fix the overcrowding issue. However the problem I feel the corrections system has as a whole is that if they can’t evolve with the rest of the criminal justice system it will never change. The only real drastic changes the corrections system has made is from the Pennsylvania and the New York systems in the nineteenth century. To add to my point is that we study to evolve or views in criminology to better understand the causes, of crime and now know the extent of most, but don’t utilize what we learned from it to our corrections system to better improve the human being. That for me is like learning what we know about child development and not utilize it to improve the future of our children, or better yet lets go with the juvenile delinquents. To back what I’m concerning is that we study the root cause (positivism, social disorganization, strain theories, and etc.) but don’t commit as a whole through the evolution of the corrections system. In the same, we also send these offenders back to their subculture without the PROPER tools and psychological treatment they will need to lead a socially acceptable standard of living. Which in turn will never really change the outcome of the revolving door issue or the fact that we will never control crime altogether. But we could change how we view corrections as we have changed our views on crime itself.
ReplyDeleteTerry R.123