New Brain Studies Should Help the Legal System Determine Juvenile Culpability - Essay Example

New Brain Studies Should Help the Legal System Determine Juvenile Culpability Thesis: There is scientific evidence that maturity to reason before actions only comes in the early twenties. This implies that delinquents below this age deserve reconsideration in courts because they are immature and not able to make right decisions at times. I. Introduction II. Findings from the Brain Studies a) Functioning of the brain b) Functioning of the adolescent mind III. Incompetence of Juveniles to Handle Trials IV. Application of Research Findings in Law V. Conclusion Introduction Juvenile cases have been increasing at alarming rates in the United States. The delinquents often receive equivalent punishment to adults committing similar crimes. However, it has been the concern of many Americans that juveniles receive such punishment whereas they are not mature enough to have full legal culpability of the crimes. Most juveniles are teenagers who lack good judgment of their actions and take risks without thinking of the consequences. The use of magnetic resonance imaging currently provides functional images of the brain and analysis of such images indicates that teenagers lack the capacity to make worthwhile decisions at times because of the observed brain immaturity at teenage. Numerous researchers have embarked in this form of research to ascertain the findings. There is scientific evidence that maturity to reason before actions only comes in the early twenties. This implies that delinquents below this age deserve reconsideration in courts because they are immature and not able to make right decisions at times. This paper will analyze the new brain studies and their implications on legal culpability. Findings from such studies should compel the government to reconsider such facts in stipulating laws concerning juvenile cases. An analysis of the situation in juveniles in the United States is alarming. The nation has the greatest number of juvenile cases in the globe. In addition, such delinquents serve their detention and sentences in adult prisons. They receive the worst hearings because they do not understand the essence and criticality of the trial. Most of them get no attorneys and end up serving in prisons for the rest of their life especially if they face conviction of any murder form or other serious crimes. Most parents and relatives of the juveniles often feel that the teenagers pay a price too heavy for the crimes they commit. In the view of parents and advocates of minor rights, these teenagers are not fully culpable for the crimes they commit. They do not intend to excuse these juveniles completely from the crime but openly demand for second chances that should examine the circumstances under which these youngsters commit these crimes and make fairer judgments. Findings from the Brain Studies The new studies seeking to understand the functioning of the brain at different ages have come in to try to save the situation of juveniles in the United States. It is worth noting that in the past there were juvenile courts and prisons that examined the culpability of delinquents according to the circumstances under which they committed the crimes. From frontline article on juvenile justice (2), the establishment of the first juvenile court came at the end of the 18th century when advocates raised their voices to fight for the right of teenagers as young as 13 years who faced trial in adult criminal courts. However, in the current state when more teenagers are committing crimes at a higher rate, the juvenile courts slowly stopped regarding juveniles as minors and most of their cases pass to the adult cases for hearing. In the 1970s, punitive juvenile laws came into place and these still exist today. This explains why there are a high number of juveniles serving life sentences without parole. Data from the same article reveals that the law no longer protects juveniles from the severity of the judicial system in consideration of their state as minors. According to Ortiz, the brain studies are producing new findings concerning the functioning of the adolescent mind (4-6). The brain of a teenager is different in function and structure as the magnetic resonance images depict. Scientists have determined that the largest part of the brain is the frontal lobe. A constitute of the frontal lobe called the prefrontal cortex bears all responsibility of reasoning and making judgment with clear anticipation of consequences. It enables the individual to plan actions wisely. This is the controller of all cognition and gives an individual the ability to prioritize thoughts. As other changes take place in adolescence, the brain undergoes changes as well. Scientists have discovered that in adolescents the brain is not fully developed. As an individual enters teenage, there is overproduction of the gray matter. However, shedding of the gray matter in later stages occurs. The gray matter is responsible for thinking and its shedding in teenage reduces the ability to think clearly in teenagers. In its place, the white matter that serves insulator functions develops. The maturation of the brain occurs in the early twenties of an individual. This information compels an analysis of the handling of juveniles in the justice system. It becomes obvious that teenagers committing crimes cannot bear full culpability in the legal process. The brain undergoes numerous changes in this stage. One of changes that involve shedding of the gray matter reduces their ability to make sound judgment. Therefore, their cases should receive fair judgment. This does not imply that total exemption from a crime should occur but rather, the justice system should realize that at adolescence, the brain has some deficiencies. During teenage, the brain has deficiencies as it undergoes rigorous changes towards maturity. This puts the teenager in a risky state and explains why most teenagers indulge in risky behavior without counting the cost and anticipation of the consequences. The teenager at this age lacks the ability to reason soberly and weigh out decisions critically before acting. Such teenagers are likely to portray action out of emotions abruptly. Such teenagers are prone to taking risks especially experimenting with drugs and irresponsible sexual behavior. In addition, such a state of the brain comes alongside increased production of hormones such as testosterone that serve to elevate the level of aggression in the teenager. The combination of hormonal effects and the inability to make sound judgment contributes to the increasing crime rate among teenagers (Bower 10). Policymaking and stipulation of laws should not underestimate the circumstances that define a teenager’s ability to make decisions. It is wrong for teenagers to involve themselves in criminal ventures but in cases where this happens, the law should give provisions that help determine if the crime resulted accidentally or there was prior planning. In most cases, teenagers let impulses drive their actions without second thoughts on what their actions could lead them to, only later do they realize that they did mess up (Ortiz 6). However, brain studies attribute this trait to the fact that the brain is immature at this stage. It is only fair to the minors if the law recognizes the findings of the brain studies. According to Bower and other supporters, the federal government should recognize the findings from brain studies and exempt delinquents from capital punishment. The federal law seeks to protect the people from cruel punishment. In this view, it should act to protect young people from the ultimate punishment. On analysis, this provision should apply to juveniles because their brains are not functionally mature and are not fully culpable for murder crimes that deserve the capital punishment. The inefficient functioning of the brain at teenage may prompt teenagers to act out of impulse and commit murder. These delinquents should receive punishment for such murder but it should be less than the ultimate punishment. In all other aspects of life, there is a clear distinction of adults and minors. Illustrations include the minimum voting age, the minimum age at which an individual can obtain a driving license and a minimum age at which an individual can access alcohol and tobacco. It is ironical that the underage factor no longer exists in the judicial system. Minors are subject to the same courts as adults and receive indiscriminately equivalent punishment. Fairness demands that courts recognize minors considering factors that affect the functioning of their brain at that age. Coining of the term ‘super predators’ played an indirect role in the slow eradication of juvenile court because it led to increased fear in the American public that teenagers had the potential of more harm than previously identified. However, the justice system has become too cruel to the immature adults who find themselves in compromising situations leading them to commit crimes that they in return pay too heavily for. They lose their entire life in prison serving life without parole (Hubner 14). According to recent studies in brain function, the teenager’s brain undergoes rigorous, transformations (Hubner 15). It is possible for young offenders to reform to citizens that are more responsible when their brains finally mature and regain ability to act rationally. This finding should compel lawmakers to reconsider juvenile cases. They should be less stringent on them and give them sentences that present the young offenders with second chances. Ultimate punishment does not give the young individuals any other opportunities to rebuild their lives. The radical juveniles who lack the brain capacity to weigh out decisions lose their entire lives despite the fact that they cannot carry all the blame for their offences. Many opponents of the application of brain studies in law making argue that research is ongoing and has not been able to yield conclusive results and should not influence judicial cases (Bower 13). However, the research may have gaps for now but it provides important information that can help in handling juvenile cases in less oppressive ways. Intensifying research in defining the brain function of teenagers will provide dependable conclusions. Neuroscientists have proved that the brain is actively involved in teen behaviors although data that is more specific is crucial. The available fact is that teens have immature brains and it is unfair to hold them fully culpable for their crimes. Incompetence of Juveniles to Handle Trials In addition, the immaturity in teens limits their understanding of the court proceedings. According to McArthur Foundation Research Network (17), offenders need a clear recognition and understanding of the trial process and the implications and research shows that teens do not fully understand how to express themselves in trials. Young adolescents greatly lack the required capacity to maintain rationality in applying information critically to their unique cases. They are incompetent in courtroom affairs and in dealing with their lawyers. Juveniles are likely to give unthought-of responses to court questionings. Their incapacity to handle trial processes does not excuse them from facing the consequences of their crimes. However, it is a clear indication that they need a different system and laws that recognize their inefficiencies. Application of Research Findings in Law The Research Network (18) proposes that the legal system should make appropriate changes in addressing juvenile cases. It should put into place tools that help in determination of the culpability level of teenagers committing crimes because brain studies indicate that not every teenager deserves the sentence he or she receives for crimes committed. Although situations compel them to take the full blame of crimes, the understanding of the brain function at this age depicts that immaturity contributes to the wrong decisions they take. In addition, immaturity and incompetence in court trials contribute negatively to jury decisions and they end up with stringent sentences. The legal system must set competency standards in handling trials. This will protect some incompetent minors from the adult trials. Juvenile trials need reduction to the level of minors who lack understanding of the court procedures. Personal Position I believe that brain studies are shedding new light in the understanding of juvenile crime rate and in determining the culpability of such delinquents in accordance with their crimes. This is supported by the article by Frontline when it presents how many States passed laws which eased approach to crime by using adult criminal courts to try juveniles. From my perspective, these studies make it obvious that the legal system should readjust to the new findings. However, I believe that there is need to apply the new information in the law so that juveniles receive fairer treatment by the legal system. Further still, I can argue, basing my argument from Ortiz, Adam’s article that the legal system should understand the circumstances in the lives of teenagers that receive scientific backing from the recent studies on brain function. This is because as Ortiz states, the limitations of adolescents are recognized. Through this recognition, some rights are not granted for instance rights to vote, marry, give service in a jury, take alcohol and the like (3). From my perspective, the amount spent by governments in preventing youths from some of these behaviors proves that teenagers are incapable of handling trials effectively. Therefore, I believe that the law should give reconsiderations to the minors serving life without parole and others who are facing the hardships in adult prisons. Minors deserve protection from any form of cruelty and the new discoveries on the immaturity of their brains offer new evidence as to why minors deserve second chances. Work Cited Bower, Bruce. “Teen Brains on Trial: The science of neural development tangles with the juvenile death penalty,” Science News Online. 165. 19 (May 8, 2004). Frontline: Juvenile Justice. “Child or Adult: A Century Long View.” Hubner, John. “Discarded Lives: Children Sentenced to Life Without Parole.” Amnesty 3International Magazine. Spring, 2006. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. “Adolescent Legal Competence in Court.” Issue Brief 1. Ortiz, Adam. “Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Juvenile Death Penalty: Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability.” American Bar Association: Juvenile Justice Center. Jan. 2004. Read More