Criminal Justice Practice and Procedures Law Coursework

The Sentencing of Young Offenders
Student's Name
University
Course
Professor
Date
The Sentencing of Young Offenders
Introduction
The extent to which society should be harsh to young criminals is often at the base of a hot debate. While the solution to this issue remains unknown, there are mixed reactions and shreds of evidence on the topic. The tough policies are believed to be associated with deterrence effects. Many people feel it is a way of discouraging people from going back to their criminal activities. The people who have committed crimes are also discouraged from retaining these behaviors after the sentencing. However, critics argue that the severe punishment of young offenders has negative impacts on incarcerated persons. They believe the punishments weakens their fragile links to society and gives room for negative networks. As a result, the same increases the chances that the future will have criminal activities. Moreover, keeping the offenders in custody is somewhat expensive. 
Whether the prison scheme is effective for the offenders' advantage or worsening their behaviors is a serious issue to the community. The time the incarcerated people spend behind bars can be formative and eventually affect their future. The issue stands as an important topic built on the framework of the young offenders' institutions. The critical questions surrounding this topic suggests that the punishment for young offenders is unfit. The issue prompts the debate that the criminal justice system needs to be reformed to allow other rehabilitation models for young offenders. Punishment needs to be proportionate to the offenses committed and implemented to prevent and not retribute. The modification to the justice system is essential as humanity groans under the bulk of superstition, greed, and drive of few people who make the entire humankind stained with blood from issues including hidden betrayals, public massacres, and tyranny. 
Background
Criminal punishment has been a topic not only for the young generation but also for every offender. There have been questions on whether the legal measures by criminal justice effectively reduce the rates of crime. The forms of rehabilitation are questioned on their effectiveness in making offenders reformed and become better citizens. While the system is justified for criminal cases, some instances point to the ineffectiveness of the system. The young people sentenced to prison may not have developed to adulthood and experience the challenges other people undergo in society. Various situations may have compelled them to adapt to the criminal lives while in their tender age. Unfortunately, sending them to prison becomes a worse idea since it leaves them with no alternative but to master the art of crime. While in prison, they spend a lot of time, which they could have otherwise used in their studies and development to become better adults. They leave the prison facilities when the only thing they know is how to do what took them to prison in the first place. 
Various findings on this topic recommend that young offenders need more than sentencing. The criminal justice or the state, for that matter, should consider rehabilitating the young people in unique ways. The first issue would be to find out about the background of the offenders and the reasons that may have compelled them to engage in these criminal activities. The rehabilitation for young offenders should be instituted in somewhat training and education centers to help them develop to understand society and determine what is right and wrong (Griffin, 2012). The issue of offenders' maturity and the ability to exercise self-control has been raised as a major concern for their criminal behaviors. Many research findings indicate that the population suffers from underdeveloped cognitive abilities and may not exercise logical reasoning in their choices. Rehabilitating them in unique institutions different from the normal prison systems can help them grow to become better people and rethink their actions before making the decisions. Such measures can ensure the youths come out of the institutions better and can be charged effectively and justly if their records persistently become poor in their adult life. 
Adjudicative competence usually involves the defendant's ability to connect with the lawyers, make legal choices, and comprehend and contribute to the legal actions. Developmental psychologists often question whether the juvenile possesses the cognitive ability and the awareness needed to exercise legal rights. Almost half the states address the juvenile's competency to stand trial in statutes. They conclude that delinquencies have basic rights not to be tried while incompetent. A major challenge is assessing the competency, where most territories fail to give the youths the best assessment. Such premises show the need to reform the justice system and have the young offenders sentenced under the provisions and environments that guarantee them justice based on their abilities. They need to develop to maturity to understand some of the misconduct they committed calls for a chance to help them rehabilitate and improve their attitudes. States need to appreciate the adjudicative competence and know that the legal professionals need to connect with the young offenders to help them sail through the trial and request their fair trial. It is unfair to categorize the young people with the adults in the same section when the adults have full control of their emotions and decisions than the youths.
Culpability
Culpability focuses on the blameworthiness of actors and the degree of the intended punishment. The diminished responsibilities of the youths need to be allocated mitigated sanctions. Such measures will prevent penalties and allow room for reforms. Compared with the adults, the youth generation has an immature judgment, which reflects the deterrence in the obligation of risk, assessing short and long-term impacts, among others. A ruling by the Supreme Court in Roper v Simmons (543 U.S. 551) recommended abolishing the juvenile offenders in America offers a backdrop for the adolescents' reduced criminal responsibilities. In Roper v Simmons's case, the Supreme Court carried out a proportionality examination of the adolescents' capability. The issue is considered "the punishment fits the crime." The main agenda was to determine whether the death penalty is an effective punishment for juveniles. Most of the judges in the case supported three reasons why the states should not punish the juveniles severely to the same extent as the adults. 
The judges' first argument was that the juveniles often exercise immature judgment and have less self-control over their actions. As a result, they act impulsively and do not appreciate their activities' values, which reduces their liability. Two, the judges argued that adolescents are more vulnerable than the children to the undesirable influence and a reason to justify that their criminal responsibility is more diminished. They felt that the penalties on juveniles are usually fleeting and less well-formed, likened to the adults. They added that the crimes offer a less dependable indication of the depraved behavior. The Supreme Court's decision on the Roper decision (569) appreciates that the youth's diminished culpability is because of the lack of maturity and a sense of immature responsibility. Therefore, the court concluded that the reduced culpability of this population deserves a categorical prohibition of execution. 
Capital punishment by the Supreme Court jurisprudence insists that death is different. According to Graham, the youth's criminal responsibility is diminished when the states decide to impose life without parole (LWOP) and the other severe sentences. These developmental psychological traits and the penal considerations that reduce criminal responsibility tend to eliminate the guilt. Instead, they warrant it mitigates charges for the youth execution. Although there is an aspect of the reduced responsibility, most states allow judges to implement LWOP on any offender regardless of age. The judges are also allowed to impose lengthy and consecutive terms that create the functional equivalent of life sentences. 
Mandatory LWOP punishment precludes the considerations of youthfulness as a mitigating element. Most states use their legal powers to abolish the common law beginning protection for young people. They remove the only felonious law protection against the young generation. According to carter (2006), Appellate courts uphold the LWOP and the long-terms of the imprisonment imposed on the young people and reject the juvenile pleas to reflect youth as a justifying framework. The death penalty jurisprudence of the court usually treats immaturity as a justifying factor. However, the trial courts treat such cases as aggravating elements. As such, the sentence of the juveniles is severe than the adults. The youth are most likely to be convicted of murder and serve their prison punishment than the adults under the LWOP provision. 
In Graham v Florida, the Supreme court applied the scenario of Roper's case regarding the aspect of diminished rationale to cases where youths ...