Juveniles Tried as Adults: A Rhetorical Analysis
This paper analyzes two journalistic arguments against the practice of trying juvenile offenders as adults in the American criminal justice system. The first, Marjie Lundstrom's 2001 article "Kids Are Kids Until They Commit Crime," uses rhetorical appeals to highlight the logical inconsistency of treating teenagers as adults only when they commit crimes. The second, Greg Krikorian's 2003 article "Many Kids Called Unfit for Adult Trial," builds a constitutional argument grounded in studies of cognitive development and mental competence. The paper evaluates the strengths and limitations of each argument, noting that while both raise legitimate concerns, Krikorian's position in particular may be overly broad in its application to all juveniles.
- Introduction: The Debate Over Trying Juveniles as Adults: Overview of juvenile justice and two key articles
- Lundstrom's Rhetorical Argument Against Adult Prosecution: Lundstrom's rhetorical case against adult prosecution
- The Logical Inconsistency at the Heart of Juvenile Justice: Society cannot treat teens as adults selectively
- Krikorian's Constitutional Competence Argument: Krikorian links teen cognition to constitutional rights
- Evaluating the Limits of Krikorian's Position: Statistical argument does not apply to all teens
- Conclusion: Both arguments raise legitimate but limited concerns
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper maintains a clear analytical stance throughout, summarizing each author's argument accurately before offering pointed critical evaluation.
- It identifies a genuine logical flaw in Krikorian's position — that statistical averages cannot justify a blanket rule — without dismissing the argument entirely.
- The comparison between two related but distinct argumentative strategies (rhetorical appeal vs. constitutional principle) gives the paper intellectual structure.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source critique: rather than simply restating what each article argues, the writer engages critically with the internal logic of each position. The analysis of Krikorian is especially strong — the paper concedes the argument has merit in some cases while identifying the overgeneralization that limits its force. This shows the ability to partially accept and partially refute a claim, a hallmark of strong analytical writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized around two discrete article analyses, each introduced with full bibliographic context. The first section summarizes and endorses Lundstrom's rhetorical consistency argument. The second section introduces Krikorian's competence-based argument and then pivots into critical evaluation, noting that even the author's own statistics do not support a universal rule. The conclusion synthesizes both positions implicitly through the critique of Krikorian's overgeneralization.
Introduction: The Debate Over Trying Juveniles as Adults
The question of whether juvenile offenders should be tried as adults is one of the most contested issues in American juvenile justice. Two journalistic articles — Marjie Lundstrom's 2001 piece "Kids Are Kids Until They Commit Crime" and Greg Krikorian's 2003 piece "Many Kids Called Unfit for Adult Trial" — each argue against the practice, though from distinct angles. Lundstrom relies on rhetorical appeals and a consistency-based argument, while Krikorian grounds his case in empirical research on adolescent cognitive development and the constitutional requirement of mental competence. Together, they represent two of the most common objections to prosecuting minors under adult criminal law. Each argument has genuine force, but each also has identifiable limitations.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.