Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence, Reaction Paper Example

In your opinion, should adolescents be held to adult standard for criminal behavior?Why or why not? Do you think there should be an age cut-off? Some other marker used? What should we take into consideration?

According to Steinberg & Scott(2003), The uniqueness of immaturity as a mitigating condition argues for a commitment to a legal environment under which most youths are dealt with in a

separate justice system and none are eligible for capital punishment. Adolescents should not be held to the adult standard for criminal behavior. The young adolescent has not grown to full mental capacity as a young adult that will warrant poor decisions under normal or extreme circumstances. It has been proven that a young adolescent has a diminished mentally capacity at that age. The author has made the same assessment”The authors argue that juveniles should not be held to the same standardsof criminal responsibility as adults, because adolescents’ decision-making capacity is diminished, they are less able to resist coercive influence, and their character isstill undergoing change”.The cut-off for prosecuting youths as adults should be 18. Any adolescent that is convicted for any crime before the 18^th birthday should be prosecuted as an adolescent. However, consideration may be given to those that are 17 years of aged. As a youth approaches 12 to 16 still have undeveloped mental capacities. The courts are filled with youths that made a bad decision at 16 that warranted the courts to treat them as adolescent. There are other makers that should be considered is the adolescents young history of violence and criminal record. If the adolescent has been guilty of horrid crimes including homicide on more than one occasion would warrant the courts looking at the adolescent as an advance young person that has adult like capabilities. However, even with the history of criminal and vicious crimes by the adolescent would warrant mental health solutions not holding the adolescent to the standards of adults. As stated on Corinthians 13:11, When I was a child, I talked like a child and I reasoned like a child.

What is the author’s opinion on the juvenile death penalty? Use the terms excuse, Mitigation and culpability in your description.

The review rejects the legal parlance, excuse refers to the complete exculpation of a criminal defendant; he or she bears no responsibility for the crime and should receive no punishment Steinberg & Scott (2003).

The authors make the point clear that the mitigation factor should be considered but the gruesomeness or appalling nature of the crime should have not burden on why the adolescent should get the death penalty. Best case example is Lee Malvo who was given life for his sniper deaths in Maryland. There are excuse mitigating factors such as the adult that guided and groomed Lee Malvo to become a killer. The relationship with the adult may have started as far back as 10 years old. The adult influence was a mitigating factor in sending him to jail for life instead of the death penalty. The other example which author used was Lionel Tate who killed a playmate while playing doing a wrestling move. There was excuse mitigating circumstances because Lionel Tate was not aware with his diminished mental capacity that the wrestling move could have killed the other child. Just using own common sense tells us that any child that has watched wrestling has performed or duplicate wrestling moves that could have resulted in death. Lionel Tate has no culpability because he was playing a game that ended in death.

Pretend that you are defending a 14 year old adolescent in a court of law. What are 3 Psychosocial arguments that you could present that would suggest that they shouldn’t be tried as an adult?

The first psychosocial argument would be lack of common sense because the adolescent brain is not fully developed. The second argument would be diminished capacity the adolescent does not have the capacity to understand their actions. The third argument would the adolescent is still in the child-like stage of brain development, they do not have a full brain development that helps with decision making.

What does the author mean by “unformed character” as a mitigating factor? Do you agree or disagree with the authors comments?

Yes the unformed character is critical because the young adolescent has not developed his identity of who he or she will be when they become an adult. The primary meaning by the author is the adolescent has not developed an criminal identity, the adolescent still has time to develop versus the adult cannot outgrow their criminal behavior because they do not think like a child and adults have developed characters.

What may be some of the concerns of treating immaturity as a mitigating condition?

The primary concern is presenting the argument to address the immaturity of the adolescent in question. This allows the prosecution to evaluate the maturity level of an adolescent which would be not be fair to the adolescent. There are adolescent that may be working, having a child and girlfriend but the adult like appearance do not outweigh the mitigating condition of the adolescent still being considered a child.