We are beginning a unit where one of the main themes centers around Justice. Read the following article from Teen Inc., and think about where you stand when it comes to trying teens as adults. Please respond in the comment section below. Think about the following:
1. Do you agree or disagree with the writer's opinion?
2. In a perfect world, how would you handle a troubled teen that has committed a serious crime?
3. The article says that young brains are not fully developed until the age of 23. Do you think the age of "adulthood" should be changed from 18 to 23?
4. Do you think the parents of adolescent criminals should be punished for not teaching them right from wrong? Do you think it would make a difference?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2. I wouldn't shun them for it, I would try to get it through their head that what they did was wrong. That no matter what they think, they're better than what they've done. I would encourage them to get help to seek out what they need in order to become a more well-rounded person. Behind every crime, there's another reason that has made the suspect weak enough as a person to do that.
ReplyDelete3. Yes. I believe that if a young teen has done something as serious as kill a human or animal purposely, they should be put in a mental hospital. Obviously, this person has actual psychiatric problems that should be looked more deeply into.
4. It really depends on what the crime was; if it was something like abuse to another gender, then yes I think whatever parent who shows that they're 'dominant', should be punished. But if it's something as serious as killing another person, it could just be legitament psychological issues that the child has. Most times, I think it's usually something the parents have done. Sometimes, child psychopaths are interested in things not many others are.
- Ava D.
1. For the most part I agree with the writer's opinion. But one part I don't agree with is that since our brains do not develop fully until we are 23, that means we can not understand the consequences of our actions. For most people this is not true. By the time most of us are 13 or 14 we understand what is going to happen if we do certain things. But I agree with the rest of this article. Putting children in a prison with dangerous adults and staff who aren't going to try to help the people in the jail make better decisions is not going to change anything.
ReplyDelete2. I would bring him to a place where he was surround by safe and helpful adults and teens. I would find someone who he was comfortable with to talk about his feelings and his decisions with. I would also find a new outlet that he could put his energy into.
3. No, I don't. Once you have graduated high school and turned 18 you are an adult. You are out in the world and able to make your own decisions and you should try to make the right ones.
4. I don't think the parents should be punished because that is not going to change the current situation. If it turns out the parents are the reason why this teen has been acting out and making bad decisions then maybe it's a sign that the teen shouldn't see his parents anymore.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.) I agree that they need to pay more attention to the violent and dangerous kids and not put them into jail and try to help them instead of making things worse.
Delete2.) I would put them through therapy and juvenile delinquent school and try to make them a better person instead of putting them in jail and making them more angry so that when they come out they do worse things
3.) No I think that 18 is a good age for adulthood and should stay that way, because it is the year that most graduate high school and go on there own to college or the military or something like that.
4.) No I don't think they should be punished because maybe they might have tried to teach them but the kid just didn't listen. So it won't always make a difference.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1)Yea. I agree with their opinion. They're right on most of the things they said.
ReplyDelete2)If I had control of it, I don't know honestly. It would have to depend on how serious the crime was and how old the child is. If it was murder and a 10 year old did it, then i probably send them away to Juvenile detention for a long period of time. But if they were like 16-18 I'd probably send to them to jail and try them as an adult.
3) Yea and no! yea because it would probably be better. but no because by 18 years old you should know what is right and what is wrong.
4) Yea sort of, because It is the parents job to take care of their children and teach them everything they need to know about adult life, like right from wrong, or whats illegal or even what they should expect as an adult. I could make a difference, and then i couldn't. It could just make it worse. it depends on the situation, I think.
1.) I don't agree because it's not fair if a child gets a second chance after (hypothetically) murdering ten people at Wal-Mart while an adult would get a life sentence in prison.
ReplyDelete2.) I would send him/her to prison.
3.) I don't agree with that because I think by 18, you would be mature enough to know not to commit serious crimes such as murder.
4.) Parent's should not be punished unless there is specific evidence that shows they were promoting murder or other serious crimes.
1. Yes I do agree with the writers opinion.
ReplyDelete2. I would sent them to juvenile detention.
3. That may be a good idea because at 18 you are allowed to do a lot of adult-like things and your brain may not be fully developed yet to use them with responsibility. So changing the age of "adulthood" to 23 may be a good idea.
4. Yes I think they should be punished but I don't think it would make a big difference because if they haven't cared before why would they care now.
I agree with what the writer is saying, "younger people" should get a second chance (unless they're serial killers). In a perfect world, depending how serious the crime is, I would think that jails would still work or a ghetto like walled off place separating the good from the bad. I don't think that it should change, because even if the brain almost fully develops at age 23, people can still be mature enough at the age of 18. Parents should not be punished, only the person doing the crime in the first place. It is not the parents fault, its the criminals surroundings and community. Ether way it wouldn't matter if they changed the age of adulthood to 23
ReplyDelete1. Yes I do thin people under 18 should be treated differently than adults, because they are not adults and they still need to learn from their mistakes.
ReplyDelete2. I would probably put them in juvy and see if that helps but not in jail. But in a perfect world, there would be no troubled teens.
3. No. I still think 18 is when your an adult if it's 23, what would you do for the 5 years your not in school, you could go to collage, but you couldn't have a dorm, your not old enough to live by yourself by law.
4. I don't think the parents should be punished because some parents do things with there kids, but maybe something happened in a relationship and they are upset and mad, so they will do something bad. It's not the parents fault! And the parents could have taught them right from wrong but they were mad at them so they didn't listen. don't think it would make a difference because if the parents get punished and, lets say go to jail, the kid would be able to do it more often and continue to do it.
1)I agree with the authors opinion because there are violent and dangerous kids out there that need to be punished. But jail may not be the answer.
ReplyDelete2)I would tell him to stop the first time and give him a warning unless he/she killed someone, then in think they should go to jail.
3)Yes because when you become 18 I think that is really when you become an adult you go to college and are out on your own so I think so.
4)No because the parents might have taught right from wrong but it's they kids decision to either follow or not listen to the adult. But I think the parents should have teached the kids that from an early age. I think it would have made a difference as time goes on.
1. I agree with the writers opinion. It makes no sense to try juveniles as adults because they aren't. Many juveniles do not understand the punishments they could face for doing these crimes.
ReplyDelete2. In a perfect world, I would send a teen to a juvenile center for a certain amount of time (depending on the crime). There, they would hopefully learn that getting in trouble and doing bad things isn't the way to go.
3. I don't think that the age of adulthood should be changed from 18-23 because, even if it is true that young brains aren't fully developed , they still know exactly what they're doing and by 18 they should no what consequences their actions have.
4. I think it would make a difference but I do not think that the parents should be punished, well, at least not all of them. I believe that parents who are bad influences to there kids and abuse them should be punished but not all the parents of criminals are bad parents. Some kids have great parents who help and support them but they still choose to do bad things. I think for some kids having supportive would make a huge difference but for others it wouldn't.
1.I think I might agree because sometimes things maybe happening and sometimes things that goes wrong and the writer could be right in some cause but there are some chances that people will do
ReplyDelete2.I think in the perfect world when you can't handle anything when your still a teen or your age that you can't do anything about it or what they are in a serious crime.
4. I think yeah because they should teach there kids more good but not doing anything bad what they doing in school or outside and I guess they should teach them a right thing what they want to do instead.
3. I think it would because there are sometimes when there brian don't or not really developed they could be a change of there brians and I think that they will change it.
1. I agree with the writer because juveniles deserve a second chance because they are young and if they go to jail then they will not live down the mistake they did in their life. They need help getting their life back on track.
ReplyDelete2. I would help the teen get his life straight rather than letting try to figure it out for himself because he would probably choose the wrong track for himself.
3. Yes, because even though when we're 18 teen we still don't necessarily know right from wrong until a parent or a teacher or someone guides them in the right direction.
4. No, they shouldn't be punished they should be taught to help the kid stay in the right way or else the kid could get in worse trouble than he already is in.
I agree with the writer's opinion on trying teens as adults and why it is bad because teens that are not of a certain age haven't had enough experience with life to know the full consequences of their actions. However, there are some crimes where this does not apply. The 2012 Ohio shooting was an example of this because I think that in a case like that, the boy knew what he was doing when he shot his peers. In a case like that, the criminal, even if they were under aged should be tried as an adult because what they are doing is, although very bad, very mature. Not mature as in good and shows signs of intelligence, but once you have made that kind of decision of your life, you are definitely no longer a child.
ReplyDeleteIn the perfect world, I think that a troubled teen should be handled differently depending on what they did. The different seriousness levels should reflect how they are punished.
Again, I think that the age for "adulthood" should be determined on what it is being used for. I think that the article may be completely right in that the mid is not fully developed until 23, but I think that if we were saying that a person under the age of 23 becomes a serial killer, then depending on their personal life as a human, they should be punished accordingly. However I think that if we say that people under 23 are still children, then teens graduating highschool would still be considered children for another five or six years. I think that 18 is a good age to determine "adulthood"
I think that the parents of adolescent criminals should only be punished if they did not teach them right from wrong. In some cases, yes, parents are to blame for an unstable home life or being bad role models to their children, however sometimes, the parents are not to blame. In some cases the children are unstable all on their own, and in those circumstances, no, the parents should not be punished because they did nothing wrong. If a child grows up with parents that do all they can to create a safe home environment and have taught their children how to be good, and the child still grows up into something terrible and is put in jail or even maybe just hated for something they have done, I think that that is punishment enough for the parents.
1) I do agree with the writers opinion that adolescent criminals should be sent to some sort of juvenile detention center instead of prison.
ReplyDelete2) I think that I would handle it by first looking at the child's background and home life because I think that if a child has an unstable home it could lead to doing things out of rebellion. But I too think that the child should spend a certain amount of time in a juvenile detention center to either learn how to approach their anger better or situations that they feel they can't control because someone else is influencing them.
3)I don't think that the age should change because even though the brain may not be fully developed until the age of 23, I think that at the age of 18 people are able to make decisions for themselves and think clearly enough to be considered an adult.
4) I think that in some circumstances they should be punished, yes. Because I believe that it is the parents job to explain to the child right from wrong and lead an example as a role model. I think that it would make a difference because usually if someone is punished for doing something wrong they won't do it again.
1.I disagree with what he thinks the fact that children that are stupid or to be more nice dumb and do really dumb stuff if they get in a fight they should not go to court over punching somebody but if they kill someone then they should but well I guess that it depends on what they do.
ReplyDelete2.Like i said above it depends on what they have done if they are selling drugs to there friends then they should go to court but if they egg somebody's house yes it's wrong to do but they don't go to court over it they should get a warning from the police and then get in trouble with there parent's.
3. I think it should be right in the middle like 21 or 22 because they really know what they are doing in the world they hope around 20 - 22 they would need to know how the laws work and how the jobs work they need to be able to work because if they can't work then they can be adults when they are 18 or even earlier i mean it all depends on what your are doing to help the work force and how smart you are about the laws and the community.
4. I don't think this would make a difference because if they are adolescent criminals then that more times then there parent's don't care about there children do as much as the parent's that there children are not criminals cause if they teach them right then they wont be criminals. I do think that the parents would be more responsible and caring about what children do and there would not be as much crime as there is now because if there parent told them not to they would not do it.
I like what you said, "I do think that the parents would be more responsible and caring about what children."
Delete1) I agree with the article, I think that if society has the chance to redirect kids opposed to keep them in jail then we should do so. If they learn they'll be ok in life, if they don't they'll end up back in jail anyways.
ReplyDelete2) They should be shown a better way to live and then work with them to make them better people. Like I said before if they don't learn then they'll be in jail in a few years so there's no need to hold them now.
3) I think it should stay at 18. You're brain may not be fully developed but anyone knows that murdering someone is not the right thing to do.
4) I believe that some crimes preformed by kids may be the parents fault, but the parents didn't do the crime so it would be unfair to charge them.
1.) I agree that the kid should be punished if he murders someone, but if he is stealing, getting into fights, etc. The kid shouldn't be sent to prison, but a Mental Hospital, because their, there is more care about whats really going on in your head, etc. But If the fight or thing isn't that extreme like they didn't just go to a armed robbery at hannahford or whatever, they should just have to get a lot more attention to them, there mental being, There home/family like, social life, etc,
ReplyDelete2.) In the perfect world, juvy would be a more sensitive place, the kids would actually get the help they need with care, and kindness, not anger, and force. If I teen murdered somebody, yes he should go to juvy, with a hard set of rules, when he is 18, he should be let out, and closely watched, till he/she regains trust.
3.)It should stay 18, because that'd be madd weird if I kid could, drink and smoke, and all but still have to live at home, And i think that, they should handle themselves, and there parents are responible for what they do past 18, unless of coarse, they were raised by abuse parents in which case, the kid should get therapy and the parents should have to go to jail forever.
4.) No, they shouldn't be punished because it was not there decision it was there childs,If the kid was abused and he is getting into gang fights, that should be looked into, and stuff, but other then if the kid suffered abuse, the parents shouldn't have anything happen to them.
1. I agree with the writer because children can't help what they've done if they haven't been taught right or wrong.
ReplyDelete2. In a perfect world I would put the person who committed the crime in juvy and a school that helps troubled people or kids so they can get help and to know what they did was wrong.
3. I do think that the age group of an adult should be changed to the ages 18-23 because you can't do things a lot until your 18 and the age of 21. For example you can't drink till your the age of 21.
4. I don't think the parents should have to be punished because they would already have to be punished for knowing that there kid/ kids did a crime because they didn't teach them right or wrong so they'll know it their fault. I do think it would make a difference because they would know that killing people is a wrong decision because it can affect there life and the person you killed families life. They would also know that if you killed someone you would probably not be able to have a good career because you would have to go to jail and that would be on your job application.
1. Do you agree or disagree with the writer's opinion?
ReplyDeleteA) I agree with the writer's opinion; children are children and should be treated as such.
2. In a perfect world, how would you handle a troubled teen that has committed a serious crime?
A) I'd find out why they did it because it'd obviously be for some reason, and probably a pretty good one. Then, if it was something like abuse in their family or family troubles that made them act out, I'd try to fix that. Then, I'd have them go into a juvenile detention center and learn their consequences. I'd also make sure that they understand why they're being sent there and how lucky they are not to be sent to prison.
3. The article says that young brains are not fully developed until the age of 23. Do you think the age of "adulthood" should be changed from 18 to 23?
A) Oh gosh no. 18 is what it's been for like ever. If we tried to change it now, it'd make a lot of problems. For example, it'd hurt and make it difficult for anyone in between the ages of 18-22 because since 18 they'd been adults; being able to live on their own, have a job, voting, have responsibilities, make wills, etc. If they tried to change the age now, I just don't know what these people would do. Also, I just personally think that 18 is a good age for adulthood. It's when you feel mature and also graduate from high school. That's another thing. Are we suppose to change the age that you graduate to 23, too? And if we didn't, what's the 18-22 year olds going to do in that time? They'd still technically be children with no adult rights.
Seems like a stupid idea to me.
4. Do you think the parents of adolescent criminals should be punished for not teaching them right from wrong? Do you think it would make a difference?
A) I think the parents should only be punished if they deliberately told them that it was okay to kill someone etc., or if they traumatized them by beating them or something (and with the abuse they'd only be punished with abuse, not for not teaching them right from wrong). And yes, I do think it'd make a difference. If you're going to show the children right from wrong, why not the parents, too?
Olivia, you are right: telling a 19 or 20 year old that they are no longer an adult would cause complete mayhem!
Delete1. I agree with the writer's opinion for the most part. I really think that the punishment should be based on the crime though. I think if a child were to get into a fight at school, they should be tried as a child. But, if it were a more serious crime, such as murder, the punishment would be questionable.
ReplyDelete2. I think the way to handle the punishment for a teen committing a crime all depends on what that crime is. If it was a minor crime I would say that they should maybe go to counseling or to a juvenile facility. But if it were a very serious crime, I think they should be tried in court, and depending on their background and age, should be punished as an adult, but still be involved in some sort of counseling.
3. I think that everyone matures at different ages. Yes, you can do more things and be considered an adult at 18 years old, but I definitely do not think that the age of adulthood should change to 23. I think many people mature even before the age of 18, and could be considered an adult at an early age, but 18 is the average. So, no, I do not think the age of adulthood should be changed to 23.
4. I do not think parents should be punished for the crimes their children have committed. I think that although they may not have taught them the right lessons, it is not entirely their fault for their children's mistakes. Everyone, even children, have some sort of idea of what is right and what is not, and they make a choice when they commit a crime. They could choose to walk away from the mistake they are about to make, or they can make the mistake and deal with the consequences. But either way, I do not believe the parents should be held responsible or punished for their child's actions.
Do you believe in second chances?
ReplyDeleteBreanna Penney
W3
1. I strongly agree with the writers opinion.
2. I would try to rehabilitate them just like the article suggested. For example, if a teen beats up an old man, it most likely means they were taught wrong in there childhood and were abused. This can cause them to have unsettled feelings and need to express them in the only way they knew from the beginning of there life. Violence. The proper way to handle this would not to put them in jail because it will cause them to bottle more anger inside, and instead help them become a better person, without such harsh punishments. Then they will re-learn what they should of known in the beginning.
3. No. I think that the age of 18 is perfect. Your brain might not be fully developed until that time but your reasonings and knowledge should be. By 18, you know right from wrong.
4. I think the parents should not be allowed to have or take care of any more children, t help this situation. I think this would make a big difference.
I like your thoughts on rehabilitation.
Delete1. I agree because the writers opinion because the young people should go to juvenile detention center instead of prison.
ReplyDelete2. I would send them to juvenile detention and talk to them about why they did it.
3. I think 18 is a good time for adulthood you would know right from wrong by then.
4. No they shouldn't be punished because the did nothing wrong to the kid and the parents are trying to teach right from wrong.
1.) I agree with the writers opinion. Kids can make bad choices if they are brought up wrong. If they do something wrong as a kid, they'll most likely regret it when they're older. If you sent them to a prison for the rest of there life for something they've done, they don't really have a chance to do better. If you send them to a school to get better, they'll more likely succeed and do better with a second chance because they would learn the differences of right or wrong.
ReplyDelete2.) In a perfect world, I would deal with a troubled teen by sending them away to a school (like in the article) and wait until you believe that they have learned there lesson and it's gotten through their head. I would give them a second chance, but make them feel guilty for what they have done.
3.) I think that the age of adulthood should be in between 18 and 23. It seems at 18 not all people are fully developed to make the right decisions. I also feel that 23 might be a little too old to just be beginning adulthood, so somewhere in between.
4.) No, i don't think parents should be blamed all the time. Sometimes it's not always the parents fault. It could be the peers around the teen.
-Caitlyn T
1. I do agree with the writers opinion because if they are really young then I think that the juvenile detention is a lot better than prison. Also, I think that they would deserve a second chance and prison might not be the answer.
ReplyDelete2. It really depends on what they commit for a crime. If it is a serious crime then I think they should maybe have to go and talk to someone about it and go to spend a certain amount of time in the juvenile detention.
3. I do not think that the age should change because hopefully by then people know how to make a good decision. But when they are 18 and don't make such a great decision then they know what there consequences would be.
4. I think it depends. If the child is very close to their parents then they should be punished in a way because then they would always be telling them right from wrong and they would have known that what they did was not a good decision. On the other hand, if the parents were not very close to the child then I don't think that it would have made a difference because they would not have listened to their parents anyway.
1. I mostly agree with the writers opinion. The only part that I don't agree with is that we should be considered a child until the age of 23 because that is when our brains fully develop.
ReplyDelete2. I would send them to juvenile school and give them a second chance. If they did it again or it seemed like they didn't change I would send them to prison.
3. I don't agree that the age for "Adulthood" because even if our brain isn't fully developed we still know what is right from wrong.
4. I don't really think they should be punished because maybe they did teach their child whats right from wrong, but they didn't really listen.
Brian Elsemore
ReplyDeleteI agree with the writers opinion. I think that people under eighteen should not be given the same repercussions as adults. Rather i think they should be shipped off to special schools where they learn what they did wrong and what could have happened if they had received the adult repercussion. Also the kids would only be let go from the special school if they showed major improvement and that they could be trusted in a community.
In a perfect world I think that the troubled kid should be put away in a special school for kids like that. Not necessarily jail but a place where the kids can go and explain what they did and then learn what could have happened if they were adults. Also to get out of the special school you would have prove that you can be trusted in a community with other people and not act the way you did. Hopefully that method would make young criminals change the way they want to live.
No I think the age of eighteen is a good age to become a adult. By the age of eighteen hopefully you would know the difference between right and wrong and if you don’t by that age you probably didn’t pay attention in school where you learn those responsibilities. So with that in mind I think they would deserve to get an adult punishment.
4.No, sometimes no matter who the parents the child can go crazy. It could be repercussions from a bad school life, or have something to with friends, or even peer pressure from friends. I believe if the parents were punished for their troubled son/daughter that would be unfair for he parents. They could have been great parents but the kid never had good friends, so through peer pressure he could become drug dealer or a different kind of criminal
I like the idea of having to prove that you've "recovered" in order to rejoin the community
Delete1. I agree with their opinion because when you go to prison they learn differently from if they went to a juvenile detention place. When their in prison the see all the other adults that did serious crimes and they think that it is normal or think its okay to do that kind of stuff. Also if they a child goes to prison then they do not learn there lesson because in the juvenile detention place they learn right from wrong.
ReplyDelete2. how i would handle a child that has done a serious crime is to bring them to the juvenile detention place or rehab to know that the things they do affect everyone around them.
3.I do not think that the age should change from 18-23 because when he/ she hit 18 they want to go to collage maybe, or learn to be independent not always needing someone to be there to take care of them.
4.well It depends because sometimes the parents are abuse and neglect the child and they grow up thinking that that is how everyone is going to treat them. then i would say the parents should be punished. But if they parents do tech them right from wrong and they still commit a crime then no the parents should not be punished because they did not tech them wrong.
1.I agree that the kid should go into some kind of jail. It would show them just a little bit of what they could deal with in the future. Also if they do just let them off the hook then the kid could do it more because they will think they can get away with it.
ReplyDelete2. I would make sure they were sent to jail for life. If you take someones life or something then you should have to suffer and think about what you did and be locked up.
3. I think that it should be changed if the brain was not fully developed. I also think they could keep the laws the same with driving and stuff like that.
4. No I do not think the parents should not be punished. The parents are not the kids and they can not control what they do at all times. I think that kids would not have as much freedom from there parents if the parents were punished too.
1. I agree with the writer's opinion. Why hurt these kids then let them out in society to do bad things, if we could help them so they could have a positive affect to our society?
ReplyDelete2. In a perfect world we would put a troubled teen in a juvenile detention center. And hope for the best that, the center would help him, so he would no longer be a menace to society. I, honestly, don't believe teenagers should be in prison, even if they committed a serious crime.
3. I'm sort of on the fence with this because it already does seem that the teens that are entering "adulthood" are still making bad decisions but even if we did change the age of adulthood teens would still be doing what they are not supposed to do. There are always going to be troublemakers and law breakers. So, no matter what there are still going to be people in "adulthood" that are not acting like adults.
4. Yes and no. It's not always about what the child was taught, it's more what they took away from it. You could be taught not to steal, kill and do bad things, but you could totally disregard all of that. I can't say that children shouldn't be taught the difference from right and wrong. They should, it's like 2 children could be taught the same thing, one could become extremely successful and a good person but one could become a hardcore criminal. It's just more about the child.
1.I agree with the writers opinion because kids and teens don't know exactly what they are doing at times and don't realize what they are doing is wrong
ReplyDelete2.I would suggest they go to a juvenile detention center and get help with their problem and to let them know what they did was wrong and tell them what is wrong and right.
3.I think the age of adulthood should be 20 because then they will know what they are doing and will know what they did was right or wrong
4.I don't think the parents should be punished because it's not always the parents fault it may just be that the child may have chosen what they wish to be.
1.I don't disagree with what the writer said but its hard to say I agree with everything.I really think that 18 is the proper age for adulthood and not all crimes committed by children under 18 can be trailed as minors.But I think that younger brains are not fully developed and most younger children(lets say ages 1-15 for now) can not fully understand the full affect of their actions.
ReplyDelete2.Well in a perfect world I would try to treat each teen fairly and different because each crime is different.A child committing serious crime like shooting is father because he was in rage is not the same as a child planning for weeks to kill his father.But if the child dose go to rehab and changes ,even in a perfect world society will still only see his or her as a criminal.
3.I think I made it clear that I think 18 is a good age for adulthood and dose not need to be changed.
4.No, I don't think it would help to charge parents for crimes their children commit because they really have very little control in that.
Cameron, I agree; it makes a difference if a crime is premeditated or not.
Delete1. I do agree with the author about children not being sent to juvenile hall for committing any kind of crime. And that rehabilitation is the best path to take.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that kids do know what they're doing, but don't think of the consequences after the situation. Sending a child to a detention center would lower their expectations because they only know how to live the thug life. If they went to a rehab to sort out their problems and learn that you have to think first, they will be able to continue through life.
3. The appropriate age should be 23. Because when people hit the age of 21 drinking comes along. Then they would probably learn about those mistakes too. When your 23 you should know a lot about life and decision making.
4. There should only be punishment on the child. only if it has happened after all the therapy. So children don't think its a get out of jail free. Parents don't have complete control of their kids. Especially teenagers. The parents should not be fined for their kids mistakes. Because if they don't have the money for it, that affects the kids going to school, or having a home and food.
1)I agree with the writers opinion because like she said when a kid goes to prison they cant get a second chance and cant get help but when they go to Juvenile detention there is people there to help the kids to get back on the right track. Yet I do disagree with her when she said that minors haven't developed enough to know the consequence. I think that 14 year old's and up know that if they do something that is breaking the law, there will be a big punishment.
ReplyDelete2)If I had to deal with a teen that did a serious crime, I would send them to Juvenile detention depending on how severe the case was. If the person went on a killing spree I would most likely send them to Prison because, they don't deserve a second chance because of how bad the situation is. But on the other hand, if the person didn't do a crime as serious as the one before, I would send them to Juvenile detention and from there I would see if they improved to a better person but if they haven't I would send them to prison ounce they reached 18.
3)I do not think that the age should be changed to 23 because ounce a person reaches 18 they should know by now right from wrong and that if they do something bad that there will be consequences. But sometimes I think it should be changed to 20 or 21 because some people at the age of 18 has not fully matured unlike most 18 year old's.
4) Sometimes I think the parents should be punished but sometimes I think they shouldn't. I think they shouldn't be punished because they cant really control how there kid acts but they can teach them right from wrong. I think they should be punished because if a child gets a gun and starts killing people, the parents should be responsible for what happened and how the kid got the gun.
1. I agree with the writers opinion when she says kids should be given a second chance.
ReplyDeleteI agree with her because children are minors and should be treated differently.
2. I would send them to a juvenile system to get some help from responsible adults.
3. I don’t think the adult age should be changed to 23 because kids have already waited long enough by age 18 to become an adult. Also I disagree with the writer when she says kids aren’t mature enough by age 18. No child’s life is the same and therefor some kids become more mature at a younger age because of life events that have happened in their younger years.
4. I think it depends on the parents personal backgrounds. If the parents are good supporters of their child and the child just decided to make a bad decision then I don’t think the parents should be punished. But if the parents don’t pay attention to their child then I think they should be punished.
Mollie Fornwalt-
ReplyDelete1. I agree with the writers opinion. It's true that kids don't always fully understand what they're getting themselves into. Yes, many kids make bad decisions, but they learn from their mistakes. If someone under the adult age is sent to an adult prison for the rest of their lives, yes, they may have learned from their mistakes, but now they don't have a chance to use what they learned and apply it to the world and their life. Because in jail.. you have no life.
2. The way that I would handle a troubled teen, who has committed a serious crime is I would send them to a place to get help, (like what was said in the article.) I would send them to a place where they can talk about there feelings and not keep all of their anger bottled up inside. Because that anger could just turn into more crimes. Hopefully, they would become a more mature person who is safe to be around, resulting in a second chance.
3. I'm not sure if it should be changed to 23, but I do think it should be brought up to an older age, like 21, because I do agree with the fact that if our brains are still growing and not fully matured, we may do things that we didn't really mean to do. 21 seems like an age where you should have learned from the mistakes you've made.
4. I don't think parents should be punished for their adult kids behavior. If the parents had something like a drinking problem or if they did something like beat their kids, than yes, they should be punished. But if it's not something like that, than no, the parent shouldn't be punished.
2) If i knew where/who the teenager was, i would find them and bring them to a fun place (like Funtown/Splashtown). Why? When they do something wrong, it's usually because they want attention. If they know someone is trying to reach out to them, they might be able to rethink what they did or open up on what happened. Then, i would hug them and tell them that everything will be alright and we'll get them the help they need/deserve!
ReplyDelete3)I really don't think it matters what age your considered an "adult." It matters how you handle situations, what you act like, etc. You go through your whole life learning&learning to act good! As long as you have a high school degree, i think any individual should be considered an adult.
4) I think parents should get punished for serious crimes children commit (if it's more then twice). To see that their parents are learning new ways to live and going to jail would hurt the kid. They need their parents around. Believe it or not, but the parents control how the kids act. If they're nice, the child(s) will be nice as well learning from the parent. If they are mean, then the child will pick up on that. If the child sees that their parent is no longer around, they will feel hurt and angry so we would get them the help they need in order to become a better person by the time the parent is out of work or done with what they had to go through.
1.Yes. I do agree with what the person wrote.
ReplyDelete2.I wouldn't go and do the same to the person who commited the crime because that would not get them anywhere.If anything they would be more scarred and hurt more people. I would have them understand what they have done and help them find an alternative way that they wont hurt people and still get out anger.
3.No,because I believe 18 is fair enough but some laws should only allow people over 23 to be able to decide so that our country would have a better chance.
4.Yes,but also the children should be rehabbed,it is the parents job after all to teach the children right from wrong and they should learn that to.I think it would help because people would see what is wrong and fix it in their homes.
I'm not sure if this still counts or not, but this is better than nothing, right? -Autumn
ReplyDelete1. Do you agree or disagree with the writer's opinion?
I agree up to a point. I think that, if they're under the age of fourteen or so, or if it's not a serious crime, they should be tried as minors, but if they're over the age of fourteen and, say, killed people, they should be tried as adults. I'm fairly sure that by the age of fourteen, most people would understand that killing people or committing other major crimes isn't something you should do. However, if they're convicted, I think they shouldn't go to an adult jail until they're... Well, until they're adults. For the time before that, I think they should go somewhere for help and rehabilitation instead.
2. In a perfect world, how would you handle a troubled teen that has committed a serious crime?
I'd probably take them somewhere for them to get help. I don't think sending them to jail or anything would help at all - If anything, it'd probably make the problem worse.
3. The article says that young brains are not fully developed until the age of 23. Do you think the age of "adulthood" should be changed from 18 to 23?
No. I think that, by the age of eighteen, the majority of people will be smart enough to understand right from wrong, what's good to do and what's not, and how to take care of themselves. There are still certain things that shouldn't be legal until later, like drinking, but they should still be treated as adults at the age of eighteen.
4. Do you think the parents of adolescent criminals should be punished for not teaching them right from wrong? Do you think it would make a difference?
I think that they shouldn't be punished unless there is clear evidence that they were doing something wrong. Maybe get them some help, but unless there is obvious proof that they were, say, supporting their child in the crime, they shouldn't be punished with jail time or anything like that.