Arguments Against Juvenile Justice

Juveniles’ Justice There are times we hear of young children committing crimes. Crimes those are punishable by either life sentences or death row. Over the course of time society has been more compelled to find out why the child has acted out in such a malicious way. But before new psychological studies we have in our system children who have spent their life in prison over a bad choice or something that they could not control. Preceding the suggestion of juvenile-justice advocates the Supreme Court decided 6 to 3 this week in favor of Henry Montgomery, who was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for killing a Baton Rouge deputy sheriff in 1963, when Montgomery was 17. Monday's verdict offers a chance of freedom for as many as 2,500 prisoners in a related situation. (McGrough) Throughout the United States of America, numerous of adolescents have been punished as
Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion: “Those prisoners who have shown an inability to reform will continue to serve life sentences. The opportunity for release will be afforded to those who demonstrate the truth of Miller’s central intuition — that children who commit even heinous crimes are capable of change.” (McGrough) Showing we can be comfortable with this assessment without adopting the credulous view that juvenile killers assume no accountability for their offenses because “my brain made me do it.” Clearly most minors don’t execute vicious crimes, and those who do must pay some price. Lessened amount for the realistic or ethical contemplation doesn’t mean any amount at all. Also, some killers who performed their crimes when they were young maintain to pose a risk to society decades later, and judges and parole boards can take that into