A number of cases have recently suggested that juvenile delinquents charged with heinous crimes are not competent to stand trial. Criminals come in every shape, size, color and even age. Brain development plays a trivial role in the sentencing of a minor. Despite claims against trying adolescents as adults, they are in fact accountable for their actions. No matter what type of environment a person grows up around, knowing right from wrong is common sense. As a result of not being convicted there is a chance minors will move on to worse infractions, which will prove to the community some convicts can not be rehabilitated.
This late August three young boys were involved in the shooting of an Australian American baseball player simply for the “fun of it” (Fox News 1). Admitting there was no rational reason for the murder itself justifies firm judgement is best when sentencing most executioners. Although some may argue the teenage brain is not fully developed, as a teen myself, knowing right from wrong was something acquired at a very young age. Unless there is a psychotic child killer running around without any civilized educational background, there is no excuse for blood to be shed in this day in age without consequences. If prosecuted, a lawyer will be appointed to an individual in which they will be held accountable for their clients competency.
“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”(Barreta.) In some cases it has been argued that a person could commit a crime and not understand the aftermath. Determining the difference between the mentally incapable and someone trying to get away with murder can be crucial. If a teenager makes a life threatening decision
beforehand, better known as premeditation, they deserve to be tried as an adult. Whether or not the accused understands how long they could spend in prison, they are still a threat to society and should be held in a reformation prison until considered safe and...