Juveniles in Our Court System

A major controversy in our judicial system is the trying of juveniles as adults. In today’s courts, juveniles, who are by no means adults, are being held to the same standards as adults. I firmly believe this is immoral and unjust. How can someone be tried as an adult, by a jury of his or her peers, when the jurors are substantially older than the defendant? A peer is someone of your relative age. Therefore, it is not legally correct, according to the Constitution of the United States of America, for a youth to be judged by a jury whose youngest member is at least eighteen. Another reason it is unjust to try minors as adults is the fact that kids are not legally adults. There is no crime committed that can change this fact. Scientific data proves that juveniles do not have the same mental capabilities that adults have. It is obviously unfair to hold juveniles to the same legal standards as adults when they are clearly not fully developed.

There are those people who believe in equal punishment for any age. However, by harshly punishing these juveniles, you are just increasing the chances for them to perform more dangerous acts when they are released from jail. In an article written by Jessica Wilde, she states “morals are inherent from birth…” (1). Science shows that morals are developed at early ages through what they are taught and their environment. A person’s brain is still developing until the age of twenty-five, showing that a young person can still be rehabilitated into a better person with better morals. Therefore, the arguments supporting the trying of juveniles as adults are not supported scientifically, morally, or legally. It is apparent that trying juveniles as adults is unjust.