i believe that stricker punishment is the answer to juvenille crime becuz jus like any other person if yu do the crime yu needa do the time. theres enough excuses as it is. juvenilles no exactly what there doing whether there 10 0r 18. so im for it i stand by this debate becuz if a 18 can get tried as an adult doing life den so can a 13 year old point blank.

Juries should determine the culpability of juveniles on a case-by-case basis dependent on the following:

1) The nature of the crime

2) The maturity level of the individual

For example, in the Roper v. Simmons case, Christopher Simmons premeditated the murder of Shirley Crook. That should lead to the death penalty, but alas it was not so. Murder is murder, regardless of who committed it, especially if it was premeditated.

They know what they've done and they know what the crimes are. I have a cousin whose 10 and he knows what the punishment for committing crime, the thing is these kids need to be taught a lesson and spending 2 years in jail is not enough these days. I've heaps of kids you are juvenile offenders and they spent only 2 years in jail and there no different and that's why they should have stricter sentences toward adolescents that commit crimes.

in some way, strict punishment is needed. why? because nowadays the teenager are uncontrollable, and have high ignorance for following rules.. juvenile age is between 15-18 where in this age, they are emotion is uncontrollable and also unpredictable. they do crimes because they think that they can run and being irresponsible for their action. why? because we are too soft, we should give them strict punishment after the judgment. and some of you said that what about if they are forced to do crime? the function of judgment before giving punishment is to consider whether the suspect is wrong or not, it is totally his/her action without any related to other person or not, think about it. they also know which one is bad things and good things, if they do crimes because of joining gang and forced by friends in gang. then why they enter the gang at the first time? why don't they just joining other positive group? i myself is a 13 years old boy, but i can differentiate the good things and the bad things.. anyway sorry for the bad English

From my own experience, people under eighteen are intelligent enough to know what they are doing when performing a crime (unless they are a very young age such as <10). I feel that if a person has the capacity to acknowledge the crime they are about to perform and have performed, then they should also have the capacity to know and go through the consequences of the crime.

After working with juveniles for the paste 15 years. I would have to agree with stricter punishment. Reason being it's easy to be a parent and look at it as your child, be a rape victim, a parent of a child slain by a child, the person of an armed robbery or a physical assualt. It changes and you would think the children are sorry for what they have done, they may appear sorry in court, but when they are incarcerated it becomes something to brag and laugh about. What's one to five years in system that gives you things you never had at home, even if you are bad they do nothing. You want to see the crime rate drop in teenages and children, sentence them based on the crimes they do, not by the age they are and see dont they change.

STRICTER PUNISHMENTS!!!! make them do the right thing stricter punishment will make them think before they do the crime again