Violent Crimes

In the beginning of “kids are kids-until they commit crimes” by Marjie Lundstron she explains a situation that makes perfect sense about a 12 year old, who was convicted of a heinous crime. At the age of 14 Lionel Tate savagely beat a 6year-old girl to death. He then begins to talk about how he was tried. Obviously he was tried as an adult of a first-degree murder. He, Tat, was supposedly imitating his world wrestling Federation heroes, or as so his lawyer tried to convince the jury, when he literally beat a 6-year-old girl. Need I remind people that a 6-year-old girl is about three or four times less the size of a 14 year old? The big question throughout this whole essay is should teenagers, or even younger children, convicted and/or tried of violent crimes be tried as adults? My opinion depends and differs, as I read throughout articles about this very subject. Through all of the research I have done studies show that it is against our constitutional rights to be a defendant in a criminal proceeding when you are not even intelligent or competent to defend yourself. In “Many kids called unfit it for adult trial” written by Greg Krikorian, he was a professor discuss this topic and he says that “in all likelihood, a large number of juveniles being tried as adults are not competent to stand trial,” Steinberg said. I was very much agreeing with his statement, in the sense that, if you don’t know the judical’s process then how can you agree of disagree with anything the, the court/jury, says, even more so, how can you prove yourself innocent? You can not. Only if you know how the process works can you prove yourself innocent. You also can not really try kids as adults, because they are not adults. That may be unfare to put them in to prison and have them probably die from torture. I say just put them in to juvenile hall until they are of age, 18, then send them to prison. Believing in our jury and court system today does seem a little out of control. First we just send...