After considering both sides of the juvenile justice system, it is clear that juveniles should face life in prison. If I were to commit a crime at 17 years old I would expect to be punished the same way as an adult who committed the same crime. I am old enough to know what I am doing and shouldn't get any special treatment regardless of my age. Adolescents who are willing to commit crimes in the first place know it will come with consequences. We all have the same brain and nothing different, it's the way others choose to use it that makes a difference. The matter is anyone from the age of 6 and up know their moral senses. Age is not a factor when it comes …show more content…
If adolescents think they can commit the same crimes as an adult there could surely enough be accountable for the same charges. For example, in Brazill’s case, he was thirteen years old when he murdered his teacher because he didn’t let Brazill say goodbye to two girls. The teacher never harmed him in any way so there wasn’t anything wrong in the past that would have triggered to physically harm his teacher. Brazill shot him anyway and was then sentenced to life in prison without parole. (Jenkins 49) It is a reasonable punishment meant to give, why should Brazill have a second change if the dead can’t come back to life? Completing your sentence is the least adolescent can do for their irresponsible actions caused by tantrums.
In that same article about Brazill, Paul tries to excuse Brazil's actions by saying all adolescents lose brain tissue. Thus making juveniles act corrupt and irresponsible. Later in the article, he contradicts his statement and says gray matter can help understand adolescents, but, it doesn't excuse their behavior. If all adolescents have this so-called gray matter, then there would be more young offenders in the world. Canada has a let television influence than the U.S presupposing it could be the factor of our youth. The youth of The United States seems to have more violence than other countries around the