Juveniles should be sentenced and incarcerated as adults for violent Essay

Juveniles should be sentenced and incarcerated as adults for violent crimes, such as first degree murder - Essay Example uveniles charged with capital offences have been using the age limit to defend their clients and various state laws have been supporting this argument. The juveniles might not be in a mature state of mind to face such capital charges. Moreover, the defense has been casting the juveniles’ guilt on several on other people including their parents. Indeed, in the De’ Marquise Elkins’s murder case, the defense attempted to cast guilt upon several others, including the childs parents and the laxity in police investigations (â€Å"Associated Press† 1). Ideally, the juvenile’s parents are responsible for their children’s action and hence have a leeway to prevent them from committing capital crimes for the first time. This supports the opposition against sentencing and incarcerating juveniles for violent crimes. The courts of law should sentence and incarcerate the juveniles as adults for violent crimes because they bear sole responsible for such crimes, their innocent parents cannot bear that guilt, evidence and facts proves their guilt, and they can serve in youth corrections on the juvenile charges as they wait to join adult prisons upon conviction. Indeed, the courts should rely on concrete evidence and convict the responsible suspects regardless of their age. In De’ Marquise Elkins’s murder case, the Jurors relied on evidence and deliberated for a long time before finding De’ Marquise Elkins guilty of 11 counts, including two counts of felony murder and one count of malice murder in the March 21 killing of 13-month-old Antonio Santiago in Brunswick (â€Å"Associated Press† 1). The court has a duty to place criminal responsibility on the juveniles if they were on sober mind and mental health while committing the capital offenses. Although the juvenile’ s parents have a responsibility over their children’s actions, the court should not cast the guilt on such parents if they were innocent. In fact, in the case of De’ Marquise Elkins’s murder case,

To what extent is it still true to say that legal justice in England Essay - 1

To what extent is it still true to say that legal justice in England and Wales rests upon adversarialism - Essay Example In such a system a decision is arrived at by a neutral decision maker on the basis of the details furnished by the parties. In respect of criminal cases two decision makers will be present, namely the judge and the jury; the duty of the former is to decide on the legal aspects whereas the duty of the latter is confined to factual issues.2 Moreover, the large number of legal commentators has designated the Australian and American legal systems as being adversarial legal systems. â€Å"Such classification is made because the primary and dominant legal procedure in this system is adjudication on legal disputes defined by the parties who bring those disputes to court for adjudication†3. The adoption of an adversarial system in England has been attributed to first, the practice of compurgation. This practice was an Anglo-Saxon defence in which several persons were made to testify in respect of a person’s innocence and second, the culmination of the extant English legal procedures like trial by jury and private prosecution4. I believe strongly that our adversarial process is the most effective way of trying criminal issues. However, the legal system has begun to recognise that pure adversarialism does not always produce justice, and more effort is now going into establishing areas of consensus between prosecution and defence. For example, judges are reining in needless, destructive cross-examination which puts people such as rape victims on trial, and procedures are being invented to prevent ambush tactics which involve one side taking the other completely by surprise5. The English legal system is primarily adversarial in composition. In this system resolution of issues is achieved by means of argument between the disputing parties in the presence of the presiding judge. This organization is methodical but costly and a considerable amount of time is taken in deciding