young people who commit crimes should be treated in same way as adults by authorities.to what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is sometimes argued that young lawbreakers should be tried as adults for crimes. I personally believe that this is partly reasonable.
On the one hand, those who participate in violent crimes should not be treated differently than adult offenders. This is because most crimes, such as rape or murder, are thoughtful, deliberate and cunning in its planning and execution. If our courts trend toward a more lenient position, then the related laws and punishment will not have a deterring effect on teenagers. As a result, teenagers are likely to commit horrible crimes since they are aware that they have legal protection. What’s worse, these teens might recommit after they are released from jails. In some cases, the lighter sentencing might also lead to resentment towards the judicial system as victims might argue that these young offenders do not confess what they have done. This could also result in insecurity in our society eventually.
On the other hand, the circumstances of a crime and its motivation should be taken into consideration when it comes to juvenile delinquency. For example, because of distress and hunger, some teens may turn to stealing food or robbery during a period of famine. Under this circumstance, harsh punishment, such as long-term jail might not be the best solution. In my view, most of the young offenders lack parenting and self-discipline, which would mean that other alternatives, such as community service and rehabilitation might be better alternatives for them.
In conclusion, I feel that it is vitally important for judges and state legislators to ensure the justice equality regardless of the criminal’s age.