Teachers pls help me mark this writing
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:38 am
Young people who commit serious crimes such as robbery and violent attacks should be punished in the same way as adults. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Whether to sentence adolescent offenders the same acts as adults when they commit serious crimes remains a controversial issue. I strongly disagree with the point of view.
Despite the age of offenders, all acts should be sentenced in the same way to prove the justice and fairness in coping with crimes. If there were mercy to be considered, the rate of committing criminal acts among the young will never decrease. Understandably, a majority of the public concerns about this feeling that crime in modern society will perhaps become resistant.
However, any judgment should be a compromise between what is ideal and what is practical in dealing with criminal acts. A great many young offenders committing crimes at the youngest age possible are immature and lack of the family's education, so they should not be punished in the way as many mature adults should be. It is likely to build up their resentment towards the society if they are judged with no consideration. Also, relatively many offenders being sentenced guilty do not understand the circumstances that they are under because of ignorance.
Furthermore, too serious a judgement made by the court could lead to reversal effects. Life in prison would negatively affect young offenders, resulting in even more serious crimes by the time they are sent back to the community. This is a common outcome that is often generated by absorbing the extreme hash nature of other mature offenders.
In conclusion, although there are certain benefits of sentencing adolescent offenders as adults, these are clearly outweighed by it drawbacks, and so on balance, I am against this idea.
Whether to sentence adolescent offenders the same acts as adults when they commit serious crimes remains a controversial issue. I strongly disagree with the point of view.
Despite the age of offenders, all acts should be sentenced in the same way to prove the justice and fairness in coping with crimes. If there were mercy to be considered, the rate of committing criminal acts among the young will never decrease. Understandably, a majority of the public concerns about this feeling that crime in modern society will perhaps become resistant.
However, any judgment should be a compromise between what is ideal and what is practical in dealing with criminal acts. A great many young offenders committing crimes at the youngest age possible are immature and lack of the family's education, so they should not be punished in the way as many mature adults should be. It is likely to build up their resentment towards the society if they are judged with no consideration. Also, relatively many offenders being sentenced guilty do not understand the circumstances that they are under because of ignorance.
Furthermore, too serious a judgement made by the court could lead to reversal effects. Life in prison would negatively affect young offenders, resulting in even more serious crimes by the time they are sent back to the community. This is a common outcome that is often generated by absorbing the extreme hash nature of other mature offenders.
In conclusion, although there are certain benefits of sentencing adolescent offenders as adults, these are clearly outweighed by it drawbacks, and so on balance, I am against this idea.