This has to be one of the most difficult essays I’ve ever typed because this topic has made me really think about life. As an adolescent, I feel that juveniles should not receive life without parole due to the fact that they still have their whole life ahead of them and they were so young when they committed these crimes. Whereas, I feel like they should because they need to be taught a life lesson. This is why I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision of letting juveniles who committed murder could not be sentenced to life in prison because it violated the Eighth Amendment. Juveniles relinquish the right of being a child when they take someone’s life, they decided to go against God, and they decided who got to live and who didn’t. This is not an act of an innocent child and should not be treated as such.
When you take another person’s life, if you’re 14 or 40, it does not matter. No one has the right to murder someone else unless it’s self-defense. What are some defenses of juveniles? Ohh, they’re too young to understand the consequences, that their brains are not fully developed, that by locking them up jeopardizes them of the chance to change, but let me question this, did the victims get a second chance? No, so why should the murderer? I am against the Supreme Court’s decision for the reason that juveniles are aware of what they are doing and they know the consequences. In the article, “Kids are Kids-Until They Commit Crimes,” Marjie Lundstrom states, “minors who are under the age of eighteen are only kids until they commit crimes. Also, the bigger the crime, the more eager we are to refer them to as mature or grown-ups.” So, what she is saying is that it depends on what type of crimes juveniles commit whether it’s harmless or heinous ones.
Therefore, another statement she quotes is, “California voters were so persuaded by tough-on-crime rhetoric they passed Proposition 21 last March, shifting the power from judges to prosecutors in deciding which juveniles to charge as adults in certain crimes.” This supports my stance because we’re talking about taking someone’s life. For example, let’s say a juvenile steals a candy bar or clothes. Those things can be replaced, however, someone’s life can not. That murder victim was someone’s mother, sister or daughter, a father, brother or son. They had a life whether it was good or bad, they had a home, a family, a job and their future just ripped away from them in an instant. In addition, another reason why I contradict the Supreme Court’s decision due to the fact is that these adolescents commit heinous crimes for a reason. For every crime they commit, they know there will be consequences. In the article, “
127 our experts are availableright now
