Juveniles
In basic terms, handling juvenile offenders remains the key purpose of juvenile courts. Hence these courts are designed not to punish but to treat and guide. However, though juvenile courts have been in operation for over a hundred years, some juvenile offenders still find themselves being tried in adult courts. The question that arises in this case is; should juvenile offenders go through the same criminal justice system as their adult counterparts? More specifically, should juveniles be considered too young to be charged with the same offenses adults are charged with i.e. murder?
Too Young to Murder?
Some times in October 1997, a young boy borrowed a rifle and later on in the evening shot at a stranger killing him instantly. The location of the incident was Detroit. The shooter in this case was an 11-year-old boy by the name Nathaniel Abraham. For this, Nathaniel was found guilty of murder after being subjected to trial as an adult regardless of his age. As Bradsher (1999) noted at the time, it was...
As an indicator that Nathaniel did not fully appreciate the magnitude of his crime and its consequences, he remained impassive throughout the entire trial. Even after the verdict was read, he did not betray any emotion. As his lawyer pointed out at the time, "he doesn't understand it -- he literally never has" (Bradsher 1999). This was in reference to the entire scenario, from the shooting to the ensuing trial and finally the reading of the verdict. It is important to note that though a juvenile may have the mental capacity to distinguish between that which is right from that which is considered wrong, he or she may not fully appreciate the full magnitude of his or her actions.
In my opinion, alternative sanctions would have been more effective in the case…
