Juveniles Are Too Young, They Deserve A Second Chance

Imagine being only 17 years old and being sentenced to jail for life. What would your first reaction be? What would change? This isn’t something so uncommon; this happens to many young teenagers. This is a huge debate that few have come to a conclusion on. The country is split between agreeing with putting juveniles in jail for life without parole or thinking that this is a punishment too great for such a young child. People who are for juveniles being sentenced to life argue that they need to be aware of the consequences of their actions or that they are a threat to our fragile society. They even argue that if they act like an adult they need to be treated like an adult. These are all fair arguments but I feel that those against juvenile life imprisonment have a stronger and wider range of arguments. Their arguments range from the belief that children need time to develop to the simple fact that it is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court. I believe that juveniles deserve a second chance. They are capable of rehabilitating into a good person as their brain develops. The act of putting a juvenile in jail for life without parole is also simply unconstitutional.

Every juvenile deserves at least a chance at rehabilitation. There are many people that believe this statement and I entirely agree with all of them. Vermont states attorney, Andy Strauss, stated in an interview that he believes “life imprisonment should only be used as a last resort over rehabilitation”. He has worked with many children in his line of work and he always pushes for rehabilitation. There was only one time that he told the judge that life in prison would be a safer option. This was because the juvenile was a previous offender. I think he made the right choice here. Many people would agree with Andy and me. This is because it has been proven more productive to rehabilitate juveniles instead of sending them to jail. In jail they will become bitter and angry at the world. When and if they are ever released they will take this anger and hurt others. If we keep them out of jail and watch over their shoulders as they undergo rehabilitation the juvenile will grow into a positive contributor to our society. This was proven in 2007 when instead of sending juveniles home the court appointed a parole officer to watch over them while they received intensive therapy. This worked, but it didn’t stick. This should be reinstated we will see a more positive outcome. When a Vermont parole officer was interviewed he told of a story where this worked. A young man who was in and out of jail constantly and never going to school decided one day to go to school. He had been working at rehabilitation for a few years and it finally worked. He was willing to go because it was something that he wanted to do. If something as simple as this worked then why not use it. It was proven to work so we should use it. Every juvenile deserves this chance to change not only because they can but because it is unfair to sent them to jail for life at such a young age with an undeveloped brain.

At such a young age our brains are not fully developed. This means that we don’t have the brain capacity it takes to make a decision and be fully aware of the consequences. This makes the juvenile brain nothing like that of a grown adult. A grown adult is legitimately aware of the consequences of his or her actions when they commit a crime. It has been proven that juveniles cannot think like this. The supervisor at DCF in Vermont, Beth Relyea, believes in second chances for juveniles because their “brains are not fully developed therefore they should be given a second chance but they do still need to be held accountable for their actions”. Like many others she feels that if a child’s brain doesn’t think like an adult’s brain then it shouldn’t be punished like an adult’s brain. Over time a child’s brain develops. This takes many years and our brains aren’t developed at 17 or even 18. When we are an adult our brains are developed and can make these decisions wisely. Juveniles can’t. Juveniles need time for these decision making skills to be learned. If we throw them in jail they won’t learn those skills. Instead they could stay out of jail and enter a rehabilitation program. This will benefit them much more. In this program they will learn to become a functioning part of society, in jail they won’t. Rehabilitation is the answer to this problem.

 If a juvenile can’t think through the consequences of their actions it is unconstitutional to throw them in jail. It breaks about three democratic ideals and at least one amendment. Because of this the Supreme Court has already ruled juvenile life imprisonment unconstitutional. During the Graham v Florida court case the Supreme Court considered both the punishment and the class of the punished (juvenile) and then decided that because of these circumstances prison for life was too cruel and unusual for a non homicide and therefore violated the 8^th amendment. If a final decision was already made then why change it. I only propose a lighter punishment not a harsher one. Many states don’t listen to this ruling and still throw juveniles in prison for a non homicide. There is much research and discussion that goes into Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court doesn’t just pick an answer they take their time coming to a fair decision; we should listen to this informed decision. We don’t ignore the president’s informed and researched decisions; we shouldn’t ignore the decisions of the Supreme Court.       

Along with breaking the 8^th amendment, throwing juveniles in prison for life without chance of parole breaks at least three democratic ideals. These are ideals that our constitution is meant to protect. In this scenario they are not protected. Our ideals state that a life should be valued at all times unless it puts others or their own lives in danger. In most non-homicide juvenile cases, the juvenile is not a threat to the public. When we throw them in jail for the rest of their lives we are stripping them of their life. These juveniles have 80+ years of life still ahead of them. Are we stripping them of their lives by putting them in jail? Some will never get their license or experience the thrill of a first love or the hardships of college. This is their life that we have decided is unimportant. This is unfair; which is something that we are told is protected by the state. But is it really? According to the definition of fair, as citizens, we have a right to justice, which translates to; people should be treated fairly in the distribution of the benefits and burdens of this society. The poor juveniles are not old enough to partake in the benefits of society such as voting or getting a job yet they have to feel the burdens of this society by being punished to life in prison. Receiving only the punishments and not the benefits of society clearly breaks what we are told is supposed to be protected by the democratic ideal, fair. Closely related to the idea of fair but also contradictory is the idea of equality. All through life we are asked is what is fair always equal? This may seem repetitive and super cliché right now but it is true. By our constitution we are told that equality should be applied to all. This seems like an amazing idea. Obviously we should all be treated equally but that isn’t always fair. Sending a grown adult to jail that is legitimately aware of the consequences of the actions he makes is not the same as sending a young juvenile to jail who, at the time, was unaware of the consequences of his actions. You can all agree with me and say that ya this is equal, they both received the same punishment, life in jail. But, is this fair? One knew what would happen to he/she, the other didn’t. Could we really send both to jail and say that we didn’t break the democratic ideal of fair? Or could we send only the grown adult to jail and not the child because that’s what’s fair and not say that this breaks the idea of equality? Because of this juvenile life imprisonment without parole is clearly unconstitutional.

Juvenile life imprisonment without parole is cruel and unusual and should be illegal. Everyone is going to believe what they want to but hopefully you will consider my arguments and agree with what I have proposed. I have proposed the idea that juveniles should never be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for a non homicidal crime. When a homicidal crime does occur, the juvenile should only be put in prison for life without parole if it was an extreme situation. These cases should only include repeat offenses where the juvenile shows no signs of the ability to rehabilitate. When a first time offending juvenile crime does occur the juvenile should always be given the rehabilitation option over being put in jail. Rehabilitation should be the state’s main focus in all cases as it has been proven to work. Putting juveniles in jail for life without parole is unconstitutional and should be stopped immediately. 

Fun Facts and Statistics

Their have been more then a few cases involving juveniles being sent to prison and you would assume that there is a variety of people who are sentenced to such but this is not true. According to the Equal Justice Initiative website two thirds of the juveniles sentenced to life in prison are colored. This is extremely high and shows that their may be some racism in the courts. We all hope and don't want this to be a true fact but it is hard to know.


In the link provided below you will find information, by state, about the juvenile programs in the United States.

Juvenile Program

Some examples:

Vermont: In Vermont the youngest age at which a child can be tried as a juvenile is at age 10. All juveniles will be protected under the Family Court from the ages of 10 to 16. Once they turn 16 they will be sentenced in the Adult Court. A child who was committed under the age of 16 in the Family Court will be under the jurisdiction of the Family Court until they turn 19. 
The minimum age for a child to be sentenced to life in prison without parole is the innocent age of 10. Currently their are no juveniles in Vermont that are serving a life sentence without parole.
Our neighboring state New Hampshire: In New Hampshire you can be sentenced in Family Court at any age, they have no specific rules except that once you turn 17 you are no longer protected by the Family Court and have to be tried in the Adult Court. From under 18 until you turn 21 the Family Court can hold you under their jurisdiction. 


All the information below is found on the following link: Juvenile Statistics 
In 2008 in the U.S. there were 908 murder cases that involve juveniles. This is 9% of the total murders in U.S. in 2008. This number is not consistent and never will be. The number of juvenile involved homicide cases constantly changes. It is usually up and down and up again the next year depending on what is going on in the world. As shown below in the graph.

 
We can never be positive or prove racism in courts but below are a few statistics to consider. In 2002 the lowest number of juvenile homicides, ever, was recorded. White offenders stayed stable through 2008 but black offenders increased by almost 60%, this is shown in the graph below. This was an increase no one cared to see. Between the years of 1984 and 1994, the number of homicides involving white juveniles almost doubled while those involving black juveniles almost quadrupled. This may be because of the recession or the increased drug use in the 1980's. The recession would have caused the children in the family to feel more pressure to provide for the home. This could have come in any many forms such as homicidal robbery. With an increase in drug use there would be much more violence and disagreement over unpaid dues or simply because people are more prone to do without thinking. Drug use in teens has an increased risk of violence and quick decisions. We know for a fact that drugs increases violence. Mexico is a perfect example of this. The violence between drug cartels has never stopped there and the same violence would translate to the U.S.  

More often then not juvenile offenders know or have some relationship with their victim. This may be because they are easier to attack or because the offender feels more secure and not as frightened. In 2008 38% of know juvenile attacks were between the offender and an acquaintances while only 34% were between the offender and a complete stranger. It has been a general trend that the number of family member killed by a juvenile have decreased since 1980. All of this is shown in the graph below.  

 

The video below tells the story of a young man in prison and what his life is like there. It is a very moving story and you hear the hardship of not being with your family. 

Interviews

Marissa and I did one of our two combined interviews. For our first interview we talked to her neighbor who is a commercial litigation lawyer. This means that she works with companies and not individual people. Although she works with companies she is not assigned to one specific company. I feel that I learned a lot in my interview. Although she does not work with juveniles specifically she knew a lot about the topic and the legal side behind it. I was surprised we were able to ask Nora questions specific to the topic and have her answer with great insight. I feel that she was a great choice for an interview and that we learned a lot from someone who isn’t directly working in the area of choice. She is also a mother herself which gave a new view on the topic because she has children of her own and had to think about what it would feel like for one of her own kids to be put in this situation. Probably this is one of the things that causes her to believe in the rehabilitation of juveniles. Much like our panel she thinks that children to deserve a second chance and should be rehabilitated over being thrown in jail. I learned many new things from this interview but one of the biggest things I learned about was a recent case about Miranda warnings. Nora briefly mentioned it and told us that we should further research it.   

Personally the hardest part of the interview, for me, was writing down what Nora was saying and coming up with good interview questions. Once we started talking I was easily able to come up with follow up questions and other clarifying questions. Overall I didn’t find the interview a very hard task. I found panel day much harder. I enjoyed hearing Nora’s opinion the most. She had a different view on the topic because she hasn’t worked closely with any of the cases. This means that she isn't opinionated and could give a less bias opinion. This allowed for us to get great insight. I found this the best and most interesting part of the interview process.   

Stakeholders

The Argument

It may seem that there are two basic sides to this argument. Simply you either agree with juveniles being sentenced to prison without parole or you are against this happening. As we all know nothing in life is ever this simple. That would be way too easy, as things rarely are. You have your two basic groups but then those branch off into why you choose that side. 


There are many people that believe that juveniles should not be given life in prison without parole but they all believe it for various different reasons. There are many that believe that juveniles should not be sent to jail and that their parents should be punished instead because the juvenile is not a legal adult yet. If you visit the following link, con juvenile life imprisonment , and read the comments you will see that one person believes that this young man, age 17, should not be punished himself for what he did but that his parents should instead be punished. This is an interesting concept that I haven't heard before, yet I see where she is coming from. If children under the legal drinking age are caught drinking they are not the ones punished by the law it is there parents who are punished. The child may be punished by the school but their parents take the responsibility outside of that. If the police find a pot farm in your back yard you are not punished the owners of the land, your parents, are instead. People under the "adult" age of 18 have to have permission to do anything from going on a class field trip to getting a tattoo or piercing. Does it seem fair that a child who can't experience the benefits of being an adult, such as voting, suffer the consequences of the law as an adult?

There are many who believe that juveniles shouldn't be given life in prison without parole because they think that juveniles have the ability to rehabilitate and change their ways. In the following link, rehabilitation, a women talks about how she does not understand or see the point in sentencing a juvenile to prison when he will just go and learn nothing. They will spend years in prison and do nothing but get angry at the world, and about 10x stronger, and then when released hold all this bitter anger against the world and release it by killing someone. The belief that juveniles should be rehabilitated is one that many agree with. It would be much more productive to keep them out of jail and watch over their shoulders. During this time people could work with the juvenile and teach him differently. If this person really wants to change they will put the effort into it and become different. But on the other hand many argue that you can't rehabilitate a minor and that keeping them intertwined with the society is a danger to us.  

There are many people on the flip side of this argument that don't think minors should have a second chance and definitely don't think they will change. Many people on the con side of this argument argue that minors should be given a second chance because it has been proven that the frontal lobe of their brain has not been fully developed yet and therefore their decision making skills have been impaired. While this is a valid medical point the pro side of this debate argues that you can't blame their brain development on everything. They need to be held responsible for their actions. They believe that although they may not be able to think through their actions and the consequences of these actions they still know what they did and therefore need to be held responsible. If the juvenile isn't responsible for his actions, because you just let him free, then when will he ever learn to be responsible for what he does? He will go on living the rest of his life care free and without worry because he is in the mindset that, if I do something wrong someone else will take care of it and I won't have to worry because nothing can happen to me.

People who are pro juveniles spending their life in prison also argue that because these children were acting like adults when they committed the crime they should be tried as adults. This is a very valid argument. They act as adult and therefore should be looked at as an adult in the criminal system, even though they can't receive the legal benefits of being an adult yet. The juvenile clearly thinks that he is an adult and therefore we should treat the juvenile like one. If he doesn't want to be treated like an adult then he shouldn't commit crimes like one.

Panel Day Reflection

I personally feel that we had a very helpful and informed panel but I would have found some debate more interesting. Because all three of them, Beth (Supervisor at DCF), Andie (State Attorney), and Dave (Parole Officer), got along extremely well. This is great for all the juveniles of Vermont because these three work together very often but for us students sitting in chairs for 2 hours it gets a little boring. Andie was able to give great insight on hearings and personal opinions on how he felt about the topic. Although he was not able to reveal details about the cases he worked on he was able to tell us about the cases quite effectively. Beth provided great depth and detail about the actual rehabilitation process that they all greatly supported. To go along with these details and to prove to us that rehabilitation is really possible, Dave told us about the good and bad tales of his job. On more then one occasion he mentioned that many cases go well and the juvenile rehabilitates but this can only happen if they want it to. He told of a young boy who was into things he shouldn’t be into and skipping school. His mom begged Dave to get him to go and to help her but the young boy never did. He found school boring and useless. After a year or so the young man decided to go to school. Dave asked why he had suddenly decided to go. Without hesitation the boy said because he wants to. Dave realized that he finally had a want to go and therefore became content with going. He wasn’t going to do something he didn’t want to do. This is true for so many teenagers and is why this story really stuck out to me. I am a teenager myself and I know for a fact that if we don’t want to do something and don’t see a point, we won’t do it. This boy thought that he could make his own decisions and didn’t want to listen to anyone who told him how to live his life or what to do and not to do.  Once he finally wanted to go to school he went. This was a decision he needed to make himself.

Map of Life Sentences

The sentences of these children are largely dependent on the state.

Interviews

1) Daniel Kronk, Juvenile Expert

2) Gary VonStange, Lawyer

3) Gary Small, Former Police Officer specializing in drug and narcotics