Who Is Greg Ousley's Tragic Juvenile Parricide?

Often times it is easier to neglect the inevitability of death, but there is no neglecting the further rebuked notion of murder. The world is quite familiar with this utmost evil and shows no tolerance, but when it comes to the instance of a child who has committed the same crime, the rationale of justice is flipped on its head. There are many conflicts to be raised by two major viewpoints. Those who believe that adolescents deserve mandatory life in prison are understandably hurt and angered by their losses, but they disregard the sheer weight of certain particulars. When a juvenile is convicted of such an act, their age and environment in which they were raised prove to be reasonable mitigation for their horrid conducts. Despite death’s permanence,
“Negative home lives can leave children with little hope and limited choices.” (Garinger 7) Consider Greg Ousley’s tragic juvenile parricide (Anderson pg. 1). He was only 14 years-old at the time. After having had fought with his parents and being at an emotional low, he felt ignored by their actions. His father continued to watch the television (Anderson para. 2) and after telling his mother about his violent and suicidal thoughts, she gave him no support and left the room (Anderson pg. 2). At least, that is how he saw it. First, notice that Garinger uses the word negative over the words traumatic or abusive. That gives a more general perspective on how the situations can greatly vary for each child that acts accordingly. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a severe situation. Sometimes is is an environment they make for themselves. They are unstable so they see only what they want to see and that is a selfish immaturity. They are brought by whatever it is that surrounds them in their prepubescent lives. Some children are abused and neglected. Their home lives are pitiful, but other times conflict and emotional tension are just as authentic of a reason. That was the case with Greg Ousley. The immaturity at his age inhibited him from reading social situations outside of himself. He had no apparent consideration for his parent’s feelings, but
Of course, “even though teens are experiencing a wildfire of tissue loss in their brains, that does not remove their accountability.” (Thompson 10) There are additionally situations where the child is irrefutably psychopathic (Jenkins 7), but that is the minority. Another of Jenkin’s arguments is the lack of education amongst people concerned with this debate. She claims that children are not sentenced to die in prison (Jenkins 11) or that brain development occurs at the same rate globally (Jenkins 6), but she is wrong. Obviously, defending these children does not degrade the painful loss of losing loved ones (Jenkins 8). Immaturity is something to be overcome, not receive dire consequences for. Now, that is not saying that consequences are not necessary or that immaturity is an excuse. Keep in mind the significance of an entire life in prison. Prison is meant to teach a lesson, but a child amongst men will receive no such thing. That kind of a sentence is pointless. So, those things in particular cannot be cast out as an excuse remissively, but this is where rhetorical compromise comes into play. Facts should outweigh emotions. Emotions, as it has been learned through the circumstances of these children, skew all forms of rational action and thought. Jenkins is so hurt by the murder of her family members that she denies the legitimacy of certain