Capital Punishment And Teen Killers: Article Analysis

If a child commits a serious crime like murder, robbery, or arson, should they go to jail? For some time now, supreme courts point out that some juveniles who commit crimes should not go to jail. Others would argue otherwise. Someone who views an act of crime as simply an act of crime would agree that a child who commits a crime would not be a child anymore. The Supreme Court defends the juveniles attempting to justify their actions as naïve like, and that sentencing them to a life sentence without parole is unconstitutional. I believe in the minority group that argues with Supreme Court justices on why they should be sentenced to prison for long periods of time. It’s never easy to accept the fact that a child can commit a serious crime. The reality is, it happens all over America and it has to be stopped before it starts to spread. The article, “On Punishment and Teen Killers” by Jennifer Jenkins is a more personal stance on the minority side of the situation, but it is the truth. Jenkins argues that The Supreme Court allows the underdeveloped brain theory apply to a situation like murder. This is the argument in Jensen’s case. In the article Jensen states “If brain development were the reason, then teens would kill
“They’re not acting on impulse”. According to Paul Thompson who wrote the article, “Startling finds on teenage brains”. This discusses the development of the adolescent brain and how teens who commit crimes are doing it out of some sort of peer pressure or naivety. Thompson’s states, “brain cells and connections are only being lost in the areas controlling impulses, risk-taking, and self-control. These frontal lobes, which inhibit our violent passions, rash actions, and regulate our emotions, are vastly immature throughout the teenage years.” Thompson argues this with the minority group who believe that teens who commit crimes should go to