Originally my research question was "Should juveniles be sentenced the same as adults when committing heinous crimes?" However, after researching different conversations I decided to change my research question to "When is it appropriate to waive juveniles up to Adult courts?" This change will open up more room for a discussion and it's also less of a "yes/no" question. I'm interested in this research topic because I'm a Criminal Justice/ Psychology major, and I'm exploring careers where I get to work with juveniles. My research topic does not affect or challenge my personal values because I have never personally dealt with a situation regarding juvenile delinquency. However, I have always thought that there are more effective ways to punish a juvenile than having them tried the same as adults for status offenses. I am qualified to write about this topic because I have learned about it in my Criminal Justice classes and I've also done my research on it in order to create a discussion for my argumentative essay. 

The title of the first article is "Reforming Juvenile Sentencing". This source provides a lot of information on juvenile law and sentencing reforms. The author, Nora V. Demleitner, is a credible source because she is an expert in sentencing and sentencing consequences. Throughout the article, Demleitner heavily discusses the sentencing laws in England and the Netherlands because she has experience in giving lectures throughout Europe.  The only aspect that could hinder me from using this article in my argument is the year it was written. The article was written in 1999, and although it doesn't seem like a long time ago, it's most likely that several juvenile sentencing reforms have been made since then. This article is full of statistics and facts, so I will most likely use this article as a primary text to provide support for my argument. 

The title of the second article is "The Attack on Juvenile Justice." The main point of this article is to show how the Juvenile Court System has been scrutinized for not being able to minimize the amount of juvenile crime. It also explains the negative and positive effects of boot camps and the idea of waiving juveniles up to adult courts. The author established ethos by adding his credentials at the bottom of the first page of the article. The author, Russell K. Van Vleet, is a credible source because he was the former director of the Utah State Division of Youth Corrections. There is no evident bias within the article because Van Vleet justifies both sides of the argument. I will use this article as support to back up my argument as well as stating the counter argument. 

The title of the third article is "Sentence Discounts and Sentencing Guidelines for Juveniles." This article mainly describes how the Criminal Justice System has changed how it deals with juvenile crime in Juvenile and Adult Courts. The author's name is David Yellen, and he was a professor at the Hofstra School of Law at the time this article was written. Yellen is a credible source because he was a previous member of the US House of Representatives and he has presented cases in front of the Supreme Court. There is an evident bias in this article. In the first sentence, Yellen explains how he is going to "highlight the drawbacks of an adult- only system in which juveniles would be tried" (Yellen 285). I can use this source as a text to support my argument. 

This research question is arguable because some people believe that it's acceptable to prosecute juveniles in the adult court system, while others believe that children should only be tried in the juvenile court system. Throughout my research, I have agreed and disagreed with a number of ideas. Overall, I agree that juveniles should be tried in adult courts if they commit heinous crimes. However, I disagree with status offenders being tried in adult courts because they are not committing adult crimes. Each of the sources I have found show differing views, but none of them have changed my perspective on the subject. As of right now I do not think I need to revise my research question, but I may need to do so in the future. 

