Human Nature or Affirmative Action - Research Paper Example

Should Juveniles Who Commit Felonies Such As Rape Or Robbery Be Treated As Adults? This research paper will explore the issue of whether juveniles who commit felonies such as rape and robbery should be treated as adults. I will first look at how at the general outlook of the issue and how people in different states have been treating it. I will then take a stand on the issue and support my argument with several practical examples and principles of philosophy. The counter arguments that will be used in the project will mainly be based on the argument of rationality and children rights in the society. Statement of the problem I decided to discuss on this issue due to its continued controversies both in reactions and actual practice in different states. The juvenile court system still remains the most misunderstood part of the law in a general perspective. In most states a juvenile is any person under the legal age of 18 who commits a crime. A juvenile court on the other hand refers to a tribunal with a special duty to conduct hearings and pass judgment for crimes committed by persons who are below the age of the majority. Over the years many people have been blinded by the new trend of realization of rights of children and in the process complicate other than find a solution over the issue of juveniles (United States Department of Justice 21). This has led to the development of a juvenile court system which is not the same as the court system for adults, with its main aim being protection and rehabilitation of way ward youths. In my personal stand I think it is right and lawful for juveniles to be treated as adults. This is because unlike in the past where serious crimes were only committed by hardened criminals, roles have changed with the most vicious of crimes being committed by juveniles. Before the twentieth century there was a little distinction between adult and juvenile offenders. Though judges considered the age the nature of the crime was the major consideration with both being eligible for imprisonment and corporal punishment. However, over the years this has changed with society viewing children as a group with special needs and in its quest to treat them right, it has lost them to a rotten immoral world (United States Department of Justice 25). Analysis and defense of my position I think it’s rightful for juveniles who commit felonies to be treated as adults by the existing court systems. In its most simplest or easy to understand definition, a crime can be termed as any particular or specific act that is prohibited by law and upon which a formal punishment has been sanctioned. Crimes whether committed by adults or juveniles are classified on the basis of the seriousness of the offences. A felony in most cases or justice systems is a serious break of the law, which is usually punishable through a sentence in a state facility and includes offences such as violent crimes, sex offences and other types of adverse violations. Juvenile offenders are legally classified into four groups based on the seriousness of the crimes committed. The first two categories are criminal offenders and juvenile, which are remanded to superior courts for those juveniles with adult related criminal acts. Informal probationers and status offenders are for juveniles who have committed less serious offences. In most state laws juveniles do not commit crimes but rather commit delinquent acts. The court thus conducts a hearing and determines the action deemed on the child best interest (Government Journal 3). My support of juveniles who commit felonies being tried and treated as adults can be explained and supported by various philosophies stands the help in relating human life to their actions. Aristotle philosophy is based on two of his perspectives: Nicomachean ethics and Eudemian ethics. The purpose of Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics is to discover human good which should be the main focus of every action that we undertake as human beings. According to Aristotle this god is what is called eudemonia i.e.hapiness, flourishing and wellbeing of all humans. Nicomachean ethics looks at what is good for mankind while Eudemian ethics projects on what well being and the happiness of human kind. According to Arisistostle happiness can be understood if the natural purpose of humankind is taken into account and this he describes as activity in accordance to reason. This is where his ethical view connects happiness to virtues and therefore juveniles commiting felonies are well aware of their inaction and the unhapiness it results to (Aristotle 90). Virtues are projections that portray character and are therefore dispositions to act in a way in response to specific activities such as the habits of behaving in particular manners. Aristotle argues or makes an argument that each virtue represents a state of neutrality in people that seeks to find a balance in different individuals depending on what makes them unique from others.Aristostle is therefore of the belief that good conduct comes in as a result of habits that can only be acquired if certain actions are repeatedly projected in an individual.Aristostle believes in individuals changing from being unethical to ethical through continuous correction to produce the right behavior. In his explaining the nature of virtues, Aristotle differentiates between intellectual and moral virtues: intellectual virtues can be taught for example liberality while moral virtues must be acquired through habit and therefore require by one associating to a certain community. Juveniles who commit felonies lack moral virtues and this can be strengthened in rehabilitation centers in juvenile corrections where intellectual virtues can be input (Smith 27). According to Aristotle every action projected by an individual aims at a certain benefit .He defines well as the specific end that each particular action aims at achieving. There however exists differences in the ends that beings aim at and therefore they may be activities or go beyond the activities to produce results that are naturally greater than the action.Aristostle ethical living also takes into account achievement of true happiness. He argues that pleasure is not a good in itself since it is incomplete by nature. Worthwhile activities on the other hand are always associated with their own distinct forms of pleasure. As human beings therefore ethics dictate that we aim at activities that result to pleasure other than unpleasant situations. Genuine happiness will only exist if a particular action leads to right virtues as it results to both value and pleasansy.Aristostle therefore argues that human beings should have a clear conception of happiness which will make it possible for them to understand their purpose in the world. His argument further explains that this human function is based on an active life that has rationality as a principle (Aristotle 108). The human good is therefore explained by Aristotle in terms of a mathematical problem. Ethics start with actual moral judgments before formulation of general principles that underlie everyday living.Aristostle advances the moral theory by establishing the difference between moral virtues and happiness. The end of life or living is not moral virtue as it’s possible for it to go with lots of unhappiness, misery and inactivity. Happiness can be termed as an activity which involves intellect and morality, and it’s the life end that aims at gaining reason in the society at a whole. This answers to the critics of juveniles being treated as adults for felonies ,as the young person’s do not acquire any benefit or value by killing or raping a person. Most critics argue that these juveniles engage in the wrongful acts for the purpose of filling an existing gap in their lives (Aristotle 134). Existential projection of philosophy also supports my argument of juveniles who commit felonies being treated as adults. Existentialism is a philosophy of finding the meaning of life through personal responsibility and choice. Existential ethics doesn’t justify any form of wrong doing .I agree that it can explain why murder, stealing or breaking a promise is wrong. Murder is a violation of fundamental human right. Fundamental human rights have their origin in human minds and correspond to human needs. Fundamental rights are universal and are implied on all individuals. Existential ethics argues that you cannot assert a right on others without asserting it on yourself. Murder is a violation of right to life requires a person to respect the life of another and the other party respecting his life in return. No person can enjoy his human rights unless the other people fulfill their obligations (Marcel 78). Good morality requires any sane person to respect the life of another. Having their origin in the human mind fundamental human rights can only be earned through the right conduct. A person shouldn’t commit murder because this will be against good morality. As human beings we are social beings in spite of Existential ethics calling for us to survive as individual’s .you e should therefore extend our concern for all humanity by treating their property with respect because that is what is morally right. Existential ethics clearly differentiates between good and bad. This is shaped by the end other than the means you choose to attain something. When stealing your end is to acquire something unlawfully which is morally wrong? Whether an adult or a juvenile, a human being should therefore pursue moral ends that will not lead to any damage either to themselves or their loved ones or those who live within their societies (Sartre 45). My argument of Juveniles being treated as adults for committing felonies is also explained by Hannah Arendt principle of human beings aspect of thinking as differentiating them from animals. All philosophers have summed up that good sense mostly emerge as a result of good morals in a wider view and rational feelings or instincts. Therefore, we derive the act moral responsibility and critical thinking from the entire combination of moral thinking. Further, it’s important to distinguish moral issues from ethical issues, as the latter deals with what a human being feels is right or wrong towards another individual in his or her own thinking. All those taken into consideration its important if we discuss what moral self is. Thus it’s very important to overlook nature and factor in the aspect of culture to give us a clear meaning of what moral really stands for. Hannah Arendt argues that culture can be observed with a more or less healthy morality. Thus in her quest to understand the extent of evil that the Nazis portrayed concerning culture in Germany in the 1930’s, argued that they introduced totalitarianism, which steered politics into a very dangerous state which can be termed as poisonous ethics. Rather it is better we analyze the situation from an individual perspective whereby the actions of an individual, who is faced with ethical or moral dilemmas cannot be solved as a result of communal actions, more so the political avenue i.e. using their set down beliefs, formal laws and their norms (McMahon 67). According to Arendt, the best way an individual can act in the right moral perspective is through judging his or her own actions. This thinking owes much to the Socrates, but for Arendt, it’s better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. She further sympathizes to the Socrates when they reason that men are not merely rational animals but thinking animals. That’s what raises the controversy, whether the animal with the capacity of thinking has some responsibility for his or her moral actions and whether to be held responsible or not. Therefore, the nature of the thinking aspect of the man cannot be separated from being held account of his or her actions because man cannot exist without thinking. Naturally speaking, somebody cannot be termed as being human if he does not think or reason, which is the same thinking as terming a man alive if he or she is not breathing. Thus any thinking man has moral responsibility to his actions. The most ideal path to abstain from deduction as per Arendt is to guarantee that one is never separated from everyone else when settling on a choice. Unless juveniles who commit felonies are animals, they should always be ready and held accountable for their actions through rightful punishment by the justice systems (United States Department of Justice 22). My first example of juvenile treatment is in the State of California. In California any person below the age of 18 years is treated as a juvenile. Depending on the circumstances however a person as young as 14 years of age can be handled just like a grown up and be sentenced to the Californian Department of Corrections with those who are 16 years old being sent to prison. Based on a report conducted by the Criminal Department a significant number of crimes committed in California are by juveniles. There is also a strong relationship of continued criminal activity of a person who was a juvenile offender displaying continued criminality. Similarly in Kentucky any person below the age of 18 years is considered a juvenile and prosecuted under the Kentucky Criminal Code. Based on the crime committed a juvenile judge is often requested by the County attorney to transfer the case to a circuit court after a formal hearing. In Kentucky a juvenile can be treated as an adult under circumstances of: a juvenile 14 years of age and above is charged with a felony involving the use of a fire arm, a felony such as murder, burglary and rape, a juvenile 14 years of age and above who has been charged and transferred in an adult court before, a juvenile 16 years old and above who has earlier been charged in a juvenile court. In Scotland the legal age of majority is 16 years and anyone below is under the Children Hearing System which has the responsibility of dealing with young people who are in deep need of good protection and care through rehabilitation after committing crimes (Government Journal 32). A practical example of a case involving juveniles and why they should be treated differently is a 2005 Ropper v.Simmons case on the banning of juvenile death penalty. In this case the Supreme Court argued juveniles are different from adults whose level of judgment and impulse has not fully matured. It argued that they are more prone to peer pressure and brain imaging research documents showed the brains of adolescents are still in low development stages in the critical areas of control and risk taking. The court argued that most people have become adults and it’s more likely they have changed over the years they have spent in prison. Another supporting argument on preference of juvenile court over adult treatment is as per a study conducted in State of Florida which concluded juveniles who are prosecuted just like the mature people were actually more likely to be involved in crimes and more serious felonies upon their release unlike those who had been tried under the juvenile court system. There is also a belief that children are like instruments and capable of undergoing change through its rehabilitation programs (Robert 52). Counter arguments on treating juveniles who commit crimes as adults have been on the grounds that children are developing beings whose behavior can be modified. Upon proper treatment, children with charges of serious law breaks in the society can be rehabilitated to become responsible adults in the society. Psychological research has confirmed that children are more likely to act more irrationally than adults which present an explanation as to why most states end to treat children differently from adults. Punishment in some cases is also viewed as a failed strategy towards behavior change since it implicates a feeling of vengeance other than reforming juveniles. A universal study has shown that children in adult prison are more likely to commit suicide unlike their counter parts in juvenile systems. Children rights groups are also strongly against the treatment of juvenile offenders as this is likely to infringe on their childhood (Simpson 120). The principle of rationality has also been used by critics of treating juveniles as adults by the justice systems. Critics argue that juveniles are still developing cognitive abilities and their sense of rationality is still highly undeveloped. Rationality is a principle that explains on the ability of human beings to reason what is right and wrong after weighing out their own persona perceptions, desires and feelings and instead focusing on fundamental truths that should be upheld. This however is not well developed in children and adolescents as they tend to be more irrational and tend to make fast decisions that have not being weighed sufficiently (Robert 12). Regardless of the several approaches that states have taken on children offenders I think it is time for juveniles who commit felonies such as rape and murder to be treated the same as adults. The problem of juvenile felonies is on the rise and it’s time for them to be held responsible for their crimes. The problem lies in deciding the breakeven point where a juvenile can be considered old enough to be mentally responsible for his or her actions. On a felony such as murder, I think age is not a question a person who is old enough to kill is old enough to serve the face of justice. No person can take a gun and shoot someone without realizing the consequences both to himself and the victim .I think it is time the society changed their view on teenagers who in most cases require no consent in choosing a boyfriend or girlfriend at their age, they should therefore be left alone to effectively handle issues regarding the consequences or effects of the felonies they commit with no protection from the state (Moore 45). These juveniles who are termed as mere delinquents are more of criminals just like any other hardened adult criminals. Adult criminal system offers protection to the society from these dangerous delinquents by keeping them locked in prison for a longer period unlike juvenile facilities which rehabilitate delinquent children for only short periods of time. The longer span of detention acts as a protection strategy to the strategy while at the same time increasing the likelihood of reformation. I also support the adult treatment to juvenile offenders as a way of ensuring that justice is upheld beyond age limit. No action whatsoever goes without a reaction and a felony committed by a juvenile is not an exception of law and they should face the full action of law. Justice will be realized if the victim receives a fair share and this cannot be through mere rehabilitation of an offender (James 43). I think it is time all courts took after a Pennislavia court system which in 2009 tried an11 year old boy who killed his father’s pregnant girlfriend out of jealousy. The life sentence in an adult court is what he got and in my personal opinion, it was actually a deal which was fair. Jealousy cannot justify murder and age of a person cannot be used as a defense for such a serious felony. But it is rare that juveniles who commit a crime like this get the right punishment. This is because there is an overall outcry that with the right treatment kids can be reformed to become responsible persons. I think the problem lies in focusing on rehabilitation as a means of fixing juvenile behavior; the state should change its focus and deal with prevention of relapse. If age is an important consideration, these kids should not have committed such felonies in the first place but would instead be concentrating on games that kids of their age are playing (James 9). Everyday murders, rapists and other dangerous criminals are being tried in juvenile courts only as delinquents and serving short and lenient sentences with an excuse of their age. In most cases they are deported and given new identities just as a matter of adding to their protection. But no one stops to think of the victims who suffered under the cruel hands of an under aged child or the families who in reality experience the painful trauma of losing a loved one or close people in their lives. The parents who may have lost a child in the hands of a juvenile killer have to bear seeing the killer free and living a full life which even adds more to the trauma. I think this is not fair and it’s not even morally correct. Just because the rights of juveniles have to be protected and upheld, dangerous criminals are freely walking and in some cases committing additional crimes (United States Department of Justice 22). I think it is time the courts started holding kids accountable for their actions. There should not even be a consideration of the lifestyle that their parents are living in the present or in the past. Sometimes these juveniles are released with a mere argument of their parents having a history of crime. Every individual has a different personality and instead of taking after their parent’s behavior of committing crime they should learn from their mistakes and lead better lives. As philosophers say morals are inherent from birth and thus these juvenile delinquents ought to be punished just like adults because they too have the capacity to differentiate between right and wrong behavior (Preston 154). I think the society is also failing on its part of bringing up youth who will be responsible in future. The society is calling for different treatment to juveniles who commit crimes. This is a sign of tolerance to their bad behavior and instead of curbing crime it will even encourage more kids to get into felony. If harsh treatment on juveniles was universally enforced it would other young people from committing similar crimes since they will already be aware of the bad effects or consequences as a result of their real personal actions. The juvenile courts go an extra mile of conducting their hearings in private hearings as a way of protecting the delinquent criminals. This only complicates the problem instead of solving it; adult courts are the right tool for juvenile criminals where the proceedings are in full public view. This is a form of rehabilitation as no kid would want his face in all media stations for committing a heinous crime (Preston 98). In my support for juveniles who commit felonies to be treated as adults the state should also consider the costs of the crimes committed by these kids. The cost to the victims who loose loved ones or a girl who is raped and as a result loses her self-esteem. The cost of maintaining rehabilitation centers which in the end serve little of their purpose as these kids are likely to go back to crime. There should be an end to making excuses on behalf of these juvenile criminals. An argument that they do not understand the adversity of their actions is long gone and personal accountability should be the focus. Juveniles can either have moral values or lack moral values and this is something that cannot be treated in rehabilitation centres.There is no difference between an adult who commits a crime as an immoral act and a kid who does the same (Preston 56). Among the many sentences which are imposed on juvenile criminals is capital punishment. The issue of capital punishment is a general controversy and its justification depends on the situation. I think if a person can kill another he or she should also be ready to go through the same as a punishment for his actions. Some countries such as Japan have set a limit for capital punishment on juveniles to 18 years of age. The most recent juvenile death penalty in Japan was given in Hiroshima High Court in 2008 after an 18 year old raped and killed a mother and murdered her baby. In such a case I think death penalty is deserved and justified (Preston 56). Death penalty on juveniles also help to deter other kids from engaging in crime because they are aware of the serious punishment and fear of death keeps them on the right side of the law. A possibility of a juvenile criminal engaging in felony in future is eliminated which keeps the society safe from criminals. Death penalty is also the best punishment to the criminal for the pain and suffering him or she inflicted on the victim. I think an individual who kills another person does not have a right to live and the only way to obtain complete justice for the victim and family is through capital punishment. The federal law in United States allows death penalty to persons who are above 16 years of age which is fair and just (Kevin 28 ). Conclusion In conclusion I think juveniles who commit felonies are not too young both in age and emotionally to be treated like adults. They are fully aware of the consequences of the actions they commit and their thoughts to committing their crimes are not a mere fantasy. Every individual has a choice to the decisions they make and no one should be declared or involve himself in criminal activities due to poverty, whether an adult or a child. I recommend that juvenile courts undergo a complete makeshift of their systems because they are the agents promoting crime among young people. I think it is time every individual became accountable of their actions without any protection from the state. I recommend all juveniles who commit felonies such as murder should face adult sentence as a way of obtaining full justice for both the victims and their families. The youth should also be regularly counseled in schools as a way of dealing with peer pressure, family problems and drug abuse other than wait until they become criminals (Preston 57). The treatment of juveniles who commit felonies as adults can be understood by looking at the fundamental of punishment. Punishment in itself serves various social control functions and is therefore justified by the principles of retribution, deference and rehabilitation to the juvenile offenders. Retribution as a principle of punishment looks at justification of punishment and was majorly advanced by Immanuel Kant who projected that punishment must always be imposed upon any person who has been convicted of a crime. Kant made his strong more relevant and logical by arguing that the absence of justice through deserved punishment would only result no loss of value of the human life (Preston 58). Deterrence is also a punishment theory that can explain the need to have juveniles held accountable for crimes and treated as adults who commit similar felonies. Deterrence focuses on punishment consequences rather than the immediate or fast satisfaction that many offence victims of crimes committed by the juvenile offenders derive. Through deterrence the likelihood o juveniles committing crimes in future is prevented and reduced. Rehabilitation as a principle of punishment is also useful in answering to juvenile offenders.Through rehabilitation it becomes possible to implant virtues in a juvenile and change them to become more productive members of the society (Preston 59). Works Cited Aristotle. The Philosophy of Aristotle. New York: Signet Classics, 2003. Print. Government Journal. Congressional Record. London: Government Printing Office Publishers, 2007. Print. James, Burfeind. Juvenile Delinquency: An Integrated Approach. New York: Ones & Bartlett Learning Publishers, 2011. Print. Kevin, Hile. Trial of Juveniles as Adults. London: InfoBase Publishing, 2008. Print. Marcel, Gabriel. The Philosophy of Existentialism. New York City: CITADEL Press, 2002. Print. McMahon, Christopher. Collective Rationality and Collective Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print. Moore, Lawrence. Juvenile Crime: Current Issues and Background. New York: Nova Publishers, 2003. Print. Preston Elrod, Scott. Juvenile Justice: A social, Historical and Legal Perspective. London: Jones & Bartlett Learning Publishers, 2011. Print. Robert, Kail. Human Development: A Life –Span View. London: Cengage Learning Publishers, 2012. Print. Sartre, Jean-Paul. The philosophy of existentialism. Michigan: The University of Michigan, 1995. Print. Simpson, Peter. Vices, Virtue and Consequences: Essays in Moral and Political Philosophy. Washington, D.C: CUA Press, 2001. Print. Smith, Scott. Virtue Ethics and Moral Knowledge. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2003. Print. United States Department of Justice. State Responses to Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime. New York: United States Department of Justice, 2011. Print. Read More