Should teenagers who commit serious crimes be tried as juveniles or adults?
455813
I believe that teenagers should be tried as juveniles no matter what their crime, they ARE juveniles. Young minds are not as developed as adult minds and at such a young age people cannot understand the far reaching consequences of their actions. I think it's cruel to try a child as an adult.
979281
Juvenile delinquincy must be reduced by increasing the penalty for violators.  Many youths are committing crimes because they know that they will bot be imprisoned but will just be rehabilitated under the supervision of the Department of Social Welfare.
141281
No. If they are lucky enough to not get caught until they are 19, then the person is no longer a youth.
588506
One, juries are for criminal trials, judges rule on all types of cases themselves besides criminal, and juvenile is probably through family court.  You'll never see a jury decide which parent a child should go with.\n\nThey are secretive, or sealed, for a reason.  To protect the juvenile for having a record as an adult, so they don't carry their mistakes into adulthood.  Imagine a 50 year old guy not able to get a job for something he did when he was 12.  In most states you can't even be charged with a crime before your 8th birthday.\n\nThe thinking is that a judge will have the experience and knowledge of law in something as critical as juvenile deliquency and none of the preconceptions, jury nullifications, hung jury, or the politics or understanding what goes into the life and care of a minor.\n\nBe glad of two things:  That your not being tried in adult court because your record would not be sealed, and second, that the Supreme Court set aside capital punishment for minors.\n\nIn an adult court, innocence or guilt is the issue.  In a minor court, what is best for the minor is at issue.  These cases cannot be tried by a jury.\n\nOne other thought:  Until you reach the Age of Ascention, usually 18, in your state, you are ultimately the responsibility of the state, if you weren't, you couldn't be compelled to go to school and such.  After that age, you are responsible for yourself unless declared incompetent by a court.
786706
Making people "do the time" (i.e. imprisoning them) is not always the best solution anyway. For non-violent first time offenders, non-custodial punishments (e.g. a period of community service) have been shown to produce a far lower re-offending rate than banging people up.\n\nRe the example above - I think that something that happens behind closed doors between two consenting adults should not punished. It may be distasteful to you, but then again, it's none of your business.
535740
The Term is used for "Juveniles" who are "Delinquents". \n:-)
964365
As the survivor of crime, I can say the following:\n\nYES -- we need to have the laws looked at very carefully -- these Juveniles can get away with multiple crimes (that if I, an Adult, were to commit -- I'd be in jail for several decades) -- and the RESPONSE that the Law Enforcement Agencies/Legal System provides.\n\nThe Juveniles KNOW that the Legal System, Law Enforcement Agencies, and Judges will just have a revolving justice for them -- Oh, poor Juvenile -- you committed a crime -- here is your arrest, by the way parent, you have to take them home right now, then bring them to court, where they get slap on the wrist to only beat you again, rob you again, continue to victimize the parent over and over again -- and the parent can't even protect themselves or be safe in their own homes.
100768
Since Michigan law has no minimum age for charging a child as an adult for murder, the maximum would likely be life. Non-violent crime, like the one Amy committed, does not apply, so she would likely not be charged at all, especially if she cooperates.
826332
Each court will be different,\n\nAre you sure they will try it in juvenile court ?  In our area, they most likely would try it in adult court.\n\nBut I would say that since the parents would not be supporting you, you would be sent to juv detention till you are 18 to 21 \nThat is about the max they can do.
93117
They can commit a crime at any age.  How they are treated by the courts has everything to do with the extent of the crime and their age at the time the crime was committed.
231358
The decision of the US Supreme Court came in 1967. It decided that juveniles were entitled to almost the same due process rights that adults are in criminal cases. http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/181/
381569
I think that if someone goes to what the person believes is a minor's place with the intent of having sex with that minor is sick.  It's not like there aren't enough legal aged people out there to have sex with.\nThey are sick and should be thrown in jail, and then have there scrotal sac removed.
1126342
Are you trying to ask, Violent youths who have been charged as an Adult? Every State has different Laws that govern juvenile offenses. First see what your State Laws are and compare them to other States. Look for previous cases involving juveniles and the death penalty.
81284
I think that if they were tried and convicted as juveniles they usually regain their rights at 18 or 21.
277781
I think that if children are in there teens and they have committed a capitol crime (i.e murder and NOT in self defense) then they should be tried has an adult. Teens should know that murder or other capital crimes is wrong.
565985
Actually, I'm not sure if you can really describe capital punishment for juveniles as somehow 'wronger' than all capital punishment for people of any age; after all, wrong is wrong, full stop, and there's no such thing as 'extra-wrong'.\n\nRighteous indignation seems to be one of the most uniquely American traits out there, at least judging by the other answers. So is the ability to take questions of moral ambiguity and render them as completely black-and-white, good-vs.-bad scenarios. Of course a minor killing another person is a terribly wrong thing. But the important thing is that the law correctly believes that the 'ability to make decisions' is something learnt with time. This applies to signing contracts, driving a car and voting as well (yes, and joining the army as someone mentioned). Wherever you draw the line will be arbitrary but logically the line that you draw needs to be standard. If you don't believe that a person's decision-making ability has developed enough to cast a vote for president, you shouldn't believe it is developed enough to understand the implications of murder. I don't believe that a 17-year-old (or 15 in fact) is an innocent ingenue, but if he's a murderer worthy of the death penalty, what about a 13-year old? An 11-year-old? If it's up to the courts to redefine the 'line', then the principle of precedence means there will always be a trend downwards. And that's frightening.
608177
I am not sure what your are speaking of. Restate your question. Juveniles (in most states) are adjudicated in a separate court away from adults. Most are held there until a Juvenile reaches their 16th birthday, unto which any new charges will be tried in regular court.