Law is pitiless

Is it right to treat a deadly 17 year old person who killed 30 people differently and a 47 year old person who killed 1 have more severe charges? Law is suppose to be equal to all mankind, but is it equal toward juvenile? Law is pityless judge, law is what creates the a wall between the good and evil, but giving juvenile less charges than a normal adult individual? That is not law, the law is to teach the evil to make them into good, but only with the same charges as an adult. Thus giving these juveniles a harder payment for what they done, they learn what they did, and they will learn for the long years. Not just a mere 3-7 years. The law should have the option to charge juveniles as adults in murder cases.

Cases should be tried based on the seriousness of the act not on the age of the alleged perpetrator. In this article is about several victims, several was suppose to be trialed with a higher sentence, but because of the law, the perpetrator got a lighter sentence just because he was below 18. The heavier sentence if he was a adult compared to the sentence of a juvenile is really really lowered. This article shows a perfect example of the flaws of the law towards juveniles sentences. Jail sentences are meant to show the person not to do it again, thus having a change over their life time. If we make the law equal against the juveniles and the adults, this will decrease the crime rate because of the fact that the juveniles will know that they will have larger charges and more risk. Instead of knowing 1 person will only give 5 years the person would know that he will get 30 years. The law is meant to be feared because of the jail time, fear is what law needs, and that is what it needs to create less crimes toward the juveniles. A teenager who is given a lighter sentence because of his age does not show the lesson thought if the jail years is really low, thus showing the flaws of teenaged perpetrators. Even if the teenager had a second chance in life, does it really mean he will feel the risk of going to jail? The jail sentence of 5 years for him if he killed 10 people? Will 5 years give the teenager a lesson? Or give himself happiness.

Giving a second chance to a teenager with lighter charges will NOT give them enough years to learn from their mistakes. When we were children, making many trouble over and over again, we didn't stop. But when we have been scolded, we learned our mistakes the harsh way. This concept is the same toward the juvenile, they have not been jailed long enough to learn their mistakes. This article >here< this article shows evidence that even if the teenager leaves jail for few years and repeats the past, the person will have more of a chance that he/she will repeat the same action (delinquent teenagers). With the evidence showing the leading cause of the start of killing with “The result of being a juvenile delinquent is the increasing incidence of runaways, teenage suicides, teenage parenthood, and a series of unhappy marriages and divorces. In this new millennium, children seem to be getting less nurturing and support from within their family.” This quote shows that if a happens, there are these variables that are the reason that caused this juvenile delinquent. The parents, the perpetrator following their peers, the environment. These will not only make more chances of the teen perpetrator do the actions again. These can be be stopped if we allow juvenile cases and adult cases equal, causing fear among the nation, threatening the citizens if they make a mistake they will face the consequences even as a juvenile. This fear is good, to keep the people think another before doing the actions,

Some people argue that trying juveniles as adults doesn’t result in lower juvenile crime rates; however few studies have been conducted regarding this issue.One of these studies are not hugely supporting that juvenile should be equal as the adult because of the fact that during 1978 there was still a big unemployment rate which caused problems, which caused a lot of crime rate in New York. The fact that during the first test in 1978 (in New York history between 1946 - 1977) to see about the crime rates and the differences with adult cases and juvenile cases, there was still a big unemployment rate, jobless and many people sleeping in the streets, which also gives another motive toward to juvenile if the juvenile has a broken family, no moral support since family is either bad or dead, and needs to support themselves, and thus, a probability that these juveniles that were held in adult cases were going to have to do it again in order to survive in the real world. In order for this test to be supportive and indicate that juveniles were not affected if they were treated as an adult case is if the test has no certain variables that might make these juveniles do these crimes again (Great Depression lead to Crimes, jobless, motives) and the economy has to be stable in order to say that these juveniles are not affected by more harsher sentences.

From the second law (in this article they talk about the comparison between juvenile and adult) compared to the other law about privacy, this shows that the public can not look at these files IF they did their wrong doings when they were young. This is a problem. The two laws about privacy (2nd law compared) shows that dangers about hiring a worker if you don’t know their files, the dangers of trusting a person. The fact that the files will be sealed from the public if you did your wrong things when you were 18 and below is dangerous because the citizens could be indanger if these criminals from the past have the urge to do the same things. Even though they might have a different life from before, the citizens still do not know who they are messing with. So maybe the citizens do not the man their talking with is a person who killed 40 people before...

If we are the citizens with no rights to see the peoples records that we talk to, they might be criminals, if we are the citizens who felt the loss of the ones, while the criminal walks with only stones dragging them to prison, is it fair? Should the law pity for the ones who kills or the one who dies?