Lately, in the news it has been discussed that 17 year olds should not be treated as adults and the age for criminal responsibility should be raised to 18 years old (Raise the age Bill).
However, Dr. Laurence Steinberg's scientific evidence and research on the 'Brain Science' has become the recognized expert for Juvenile/Youthful Offenders brain development, which the United States Supreme Court relied on in their ruling, that it was "Cruel and Unusual Punishment to sentence an youthful offender whose brain has not fully developed to 'Life Without the Possibility of Parole'.
According to the Brain Science, research shows that a brain continues to mature even into his or her mid-twenties. Some believe the brain and the ability to make good decisions and judgments reached closer to 25 or 26 years of age. In California, legislatively raised their 'Juvenile/Youthful Offender' age to 25 years old, inline with the Brain Science and resentenced those 25 years old and younger who were sentenced to Life without the possibility of parole.
The 'Raise the age Bill' and the issue of raising the age for 'Juvenile Lifers', are two different issues that are commonly mixed-up. "Raise the age Bill', is a Bill that provides more protection to incarcerated young offenders and increase the age of criminal responsibility to 18. However, many issues in this Bill have already been done. Such as, age appropriate facilities, which was done in the 80's & 90's such as the 'Michigan Reformatory' which was nicknamed 'Gladiator School'. Age appropriate facilities did not work so well then, and I don't think not so much now either.
Now, for the issue of raising the age for 'Juvenile Lifers', is about raising the age for similar situated youthful offenders who were left unprotected. The same 'Scientific Research' for offenders 17 and under, is also applicable to those 18 - 22 years old. The legislators here in Michigan raised the age for the 'Youthful Training Act' to 23 years old off of that same 'Scientific Evidence'. By the lawmakers using the 'Brain Science' to raise the age for HYTA, they have clearly established who and what a 'Youthful Offender' is. So, it should not be such a big stretch to add 18 - 22 year olds to the already established MCL 769.25(a) for 'Juvenile Lifers'.
How did this culture of charging children/youthful offenders as adults come about? In the early 80's 'Adults' were using kids/youthful offenders to commit serious crimes to avoid criminal responsibility. And the public outcry was, something has to be done about these kids committing these serious crimes.
In Michigan the Juvenile Lifers totaled 358. Juveniles sentenced to Life without the Possibility of parole, tend to be male, black and have committed their crimes in the 1980's and 1990's. When the crimes occurred: in 1960's under 25; in 1970's just over 25; in 1980's 100; in 1990's 150; in 2000's mid 50's. (Source: Booth Michigan analysis)
So, youthful offender were charged as adults and given adult sentences as the remedy. This culture of abandoning the 'Juvenile Court System', which had jurisdiction over these kids until they were 21 years of age, became so prevalent we did not even blink when a 11 year old (Nathaniel Abraham) was charged as an adult.
Lets look at this logic, if an adult was to provide someone under the age of 21 with some alcohol, they could be charged with 'Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor'. If that same adult who provided the alcohol took the underage person on a crime, the underage person would be charged as an adult. In one aspect, the underage person is recognized as a 'Minor' and protected and in the next they are crucified as a adult.
Recognizing, the lower culpability and competency of children convicted of homicides does not require eliminating punishment for these crimes. It just means not giving young offenders the harshest punishment that is basically a 'Walking Death Sentence'. The assumption that life imprisonment is an rational alternative to punish kids is irrational.
"It is easier to build strong children, than it is to repair broken men." Frederick Douglas
However, Dr. Laurence Steinberg's scientific evidence and research on the 'Brain Science' has become the recognized expert for Juvenile/Youthful Offenders brain development, which the United States Supreme Court relied on in their ruling, that it was "Cruel and Unusual Punishment to sentence an youthful offender whose brain has not fully developed to 'Life Without the Possibility of Parole'.
According to the Brain Science, research shows that a brain continues to mature even into his or her mid-twenties. Some believe the brain and the ability to make good decisions and judgments reached closer to 25 or 26 years of age. In California, legislatively raised their 'Juvenile/Youthful Offender' age to 25 years old, inline with the Brain Science and resentenced those 25 years old and younger who were sentenced to Life without the possibility of parole.
The 'Raise the age Bill' and the issue of raising the age for 'Juvenile Lifers', are two different issues that are commonly mixed-up. "Raise the age Bill', is a Bill that provides more protection to incarcerated young offenders and increase the age of criminal responsibility to 18. However, many issues in this Bill have already been done. Such as, age appropriate facilities, which was done in the 80's & 90's such as the 'Michigan Reformatory' which was nicknamed 'Gladiator School'. Age appropriate facilities did not work so well then, and I don't think not so much now either.
Now, for the issue of raising the age for 'Juvenile Lifers', is about raising the age for similar situated youthful offenders who were left unprotected. The same 'Scientific Research' for offenders 17 and under, is also applicable to those 18 - 22 years old. The legislators here in Michigan raised the age for the 'Youthful Training Act' to 23 years old off of that same 'Scientific Evidence'. By the lawmakers using the 'Brain Science' to raise the age for HYTA, they have clearly established who and what a 'Youthful Offender' is. So, it should not be such a big stretch to add 18 - 22 year olds to the already established MCL 769.25(a) for 'Juvenile Lifers'.
How did this culture of charging children/youthful offenders as adults come about? In the early 80's 'Adults' were using kids/youthful offenders to commit serious crimes to avoid criminal responsibility. And the public outcry was, something has to be done about these kids committing these serious crimes.
In Michigan the Juvenile Lifers totaled 358. Juveniles sentenced to Life without the Possibility of parole, tend to be male, black and have committed their crimes in the 1980's and 1990's. When the crimes occurred: in 1960's under 25; in 1970's just over 25; in 1980's 100; in 1990's 150; in 2000's mid 50's. (Source: Booth Michigan analysis)
So, youthful offender were charged as adults and given adult sentences as the remedy. This culture of abandoning the 'Juvenile Court System', which had jurisdiction over these kids until they were 21 years of age, became so prevalent we did not even blink when a 11 year old (Nathaniel Abraham) was charged as an adult.
Lets look at this logic, if an adult was to provide someone under the age of 21 with some alcohol, they could be charged with 'Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor'. If that same adult who provided the alcohol took the underage person on a crime, the underage person would be charged as an adult. In one aspect, the underage person is recognized as a 'Minor' and protected and in the next they are crucified as a adult.
Recognizing, the lower culpability and competency of children convicted of homicides does not require eliminating punishment for these crimes. It just means not giving young offenders the harshest punishment that is basically a 'Walking Death Sentence'. The assumption that life imprisonment is an rational alternative to punish kids is irrational.
"It is easier to build strong children, than it is to repair broken men." Frederick Douglas
Comments
Post a Comment