Trying young criminals in a court of law as if they were adults has caused much controversy all over America. After reading “Juvenile Criminals Must Be Tried as Adults” and “Stop Trying 13-Year-Olds in Court as Adults,” it is established that there are two main claims of the argument. One believes in fair treatment no matter what age. The other opponents offer grace to those children who have broken the law. I take the side that supports the treatment of children in court as adults.
Many believe that when minors commit a crime, they should be sent to court to receive the punishment such as any other unlawful adult. Offenses include: rape, robbery, assault, murder, or attempted murder. We are the people who think that children should be treated like adults. We believe this because the children are responsible for their actions. For example, “…Why don’t juveniles committing crimes so heinous get the punishment they deserve more often?” (Wilde 1). This shows our opinion on the subject and that it is opposing the treatment of children as if they were malleable.
On the other hand, others believe that rehabilitation is the right path for delinquents under eighteen. This side of the argument states that the under-aged crook brains are “malleable”, or easily changed. These people believe that children should be treated like children and to be less severely punished. According to Mike Hendricks, “…14 is too young to be considered an adult…. Kids are not adults…. They don’t think things out…”(1) They believe this because children are easily tempted and simple minded. They think that the process of rehabilitation or indicative speech can correct their behavior.
An adult trial on kids is still the right thing to do. Only a few people haven’t shown care about the subject. There are two main claims of the argument. One believes in fair treatment no matter what age. The other opponents offer grace to those children who have broken the law. Choose your side and help your side win its fight.