Teen Controversy

In todays society criminals receive leniency on their crimes based almost solely
on age, meaning adolescent offenders are able to get off with a lesser sentence for even a
serious offense. Although teens have yet to fully mature they should undergo adult trial,
because they control their own actions accepting the full consequence of their decisions.
Bryan Huynh stresses that in the judicial law and court system no matter age, a
crime should retain its appropriate sentence. Displaying the bias of society due to a
current moral belief of adolescent innocence and a naivety that juvenile delinquents can
change, thus discrediting judicial impartiality. This matters because a juvenile, like any
other person, must be given the appropriate sentence depending their crime, and that age
is no reason to grant clemency.
Teens should be tried as adults due to the fact that they should know right from
wrong, meaning they continued with their criminal activity with full acknowledgement
that their actions broke the law. Regarding the contrary, biologically adolescents have yet
to fully mature their frontal lobe, which dictates the decision making part of the brain,
putting to mind that may be the cause of their impaired judgment. In contrast, teens
should understand there are consequences to their actions even if they have no knowledge
of the law.
Judicial leniency can lead to juveniles believing they are able to disregard the law
with little consequence to them, enabling them to commit crimes without reconsidering
their actions. Other people would disagree emphasizing that if teens experience some
form of punishment, even light, they will learn and change their ways to abide by the law.
Such actions, can be misinterpreted as a loophole encouraging teens to pursue further
criminal activity without the worry of serious punishments.
Regardless of age a transgressor should be dealt with the upmost impartiality,
regarding the seriousness of the crime without bias and to reach a verdict fitful of the
crime. In contrast some believe teens have yet to understand the weight of their actions
and in that regard should be given a second chance with a lesser sentence providing
lenience in order for them to learn, without the full harshness of the law. Contrary to such
belief, there should be unbiased judicial judgment providing a verdict appropriate to
crime no matter the circumstance.
Teenagers should be tried as adult and in turn eliminating the provided clemency
towards teens. This elimination would cause adolescents to reconsider their actions that
may violate the laws. In addition, it would further influence the conduct and mindset of
future generations causing them to question their actions and whether it is worth the
consequence. Thus bringing teens of now and the future to abide by the law and maintain
civil conduct, providing them an early ground work to future demeanor in society.