This research question is mainly interesting because it takes a further look into a much more subjective and cautious aspect of our nation’s justice system. In a system where most if not all decisions are based on written laws, codes, rights, and so forth, deciding whether or not a juvenile is to be tried as such or as an adult is a decision that cannot be made using a formula or rule book, though that would make life easier. This is primarily why so much controversy surrounds the topic, think of all the parents in the United States. Each parent raises their child differently and most are very protective, thus making it even harder to surrender control to the criminal justice system and hope justice emerges. However, what has yet to emerge is a viewpoint accepted by a majority of sources, making this issue both versatile and complex. The complexity simple stems from the fact that each juvenile is a different person, in a different area, who committed a different crime: these factors and more are what make the issue both interesting and unique, because though most recent sources believe juvenile incarceration is wrong and essentially pointless, it still happens in America. The decision on whether or not to sentence an adult to time in prison is a large undertaking, but this is multiplied and magnified by the media in the realm of the juvenile sector. Juvenile incarceration, though viewed negatively by most, also logistically does not help the fact that the United States is the leading country in incarceration percentage, and no correlation has been found between juveniles being tried as adults and sentenced to prison and juvenile crime decline. This issue both interests and affects me personally, as I am studying criminal justice and find that this displays a side to the criminal justice system not often seen or put into practice. However, in addition to the obvious criminal justice officials and juveniles that obviously care deeply about this topic, the justice system and how it operates is something that most if not all Americans should care about. Though the juvenile sector alone may affect a smaller percentage of people, though many Americans are currently and will be parents susceptible to this in the future, this is a moral issue many Americans care about and voice opinions about, whether it be via petitions or social media platforms. Even if this issue does not bother you, the criminal justice system behind the issue at hand is where we look to for any and every law set forth by our government, including even our basic human rights as Americans, so it never hurts to do some research.  

The severity of crimes should be the determinant as to whether or not a juvenile should be tried as an adult. In the case of the school shooting documented in West Liberty, Ohio just a few days ago, a seventeen-year-old male brought a weapon into a school zone, shot two students, created mass panic, and even after he was arrested, the fear students now face in a daily activity that should be mundane at worst and exciting at best is now validated by the actions of this young adult. Because of the intensity of these crimes, this teenager not only should, but must be charged as an adult. He showed the reasoning capabilities of an adult by obtaining a weapon. He showed premeditation of location to discharge his weapon by showing up to his school where he knew there would be many easy targets and that he would be able to create the most panic if he committed his crime there. All in all, it would be foolhardy and unwise to try him as anything other than an adult.

However, not all news outlets are in agreement that juveniles should even face the possibility to be charged as adults. CNN commentator, Laurence Steinberg, addresses the fact that in an upcoming case for the Supreme Court, they will be deciding on whether or not a life sentence with no hope of parole is appropriate and/or necessary for juveniles convicted of murder. Because juveniles are typically more short-sighted and less capable of making logical decisions, some would agree that even though these teens have committed murder, they should not be punished forever. However, murder is a horrific crime. It is permanent, since it involves death, so it only makes sense that the punishment for the crime should follow the pattern of permanence. And while juveniles can no longer be served the death sentence, life without parole is a just punishment for a murderer.

In the final source, a Huffington post article written by Marsha Levick and Steve Drizin, the case being tackled is one that has raised many eyebrows. A ten-year-old murdered his father and confessed to it after waiving his Miranda rights. Now, the article debates whether or not a ten year old has the mental capacity to not only give up those rights but also to even understand what they are as an adult would be more than able to do. And while this list of inherent rights that is read to every perpetrator on sight of his arrest, he may give them up at any time during questioning. Because this child committed a murder of his parent in cold-blood, circumstances notwithstanding, the fact he waived his rights and that the police got a conviction because of this should not be as big of an issue as the press has made it out to be.

This research question is especially arguable because, upon further research, cases from all over the country emerge; each one different than the last, with a different outcome and a completely different opinion, making the topic versatile and arguable from more than two or even possibly three sides. Most sources find juveniles being tried as adults to be irresponsible and pointless, and another small percentage seemed to agree that sentencing juveniles to prison time was essentially feeding the problem of mass incarcerations while also imprisoning a minor. The different perspectives offered by each of the sources truly highlight what happens when a factor of the criminal justice system becomes so subjective, because although the decision-makers do their best to be fair and analyze all aspects of the case, someone will always be disappointed by the outcome, especially when dealing with the moral issue of juveniles in the court system. I would revise this research question to include efforts being made to lower juvenile crime in the first place, which I stumbled upon while researching the sources presented above. 