|
|
| Adult v. juvenile justice: Judge to decide legal path of teenage murder defendant |
| By times-standard.com - Thadeus Greenson |
| Published: 09/23/2013 |
|
Marynella Woods has a comic strip hanging on the wall of her office. ”It's a district attorney speaking in front of a judge, and he says, 'The state asks that the defendant, although just a tadpole, be charged as an adult,'” Woods said. As a senior social worker in the juvenile division of San Francisco's Public Defender's Office, Woods would argue a similar situation is playing out in Humboldt County Superior Court, where a judge is slated to decide whether 16-year-old Rosalie Adams should be tried as an adult on charges of murder and attempted murder in the crossbow killing of one man and the wounding of another. Adams' case, and the arguments expected at an Oct. 17 hearing to determine whether she is fit for the juvenile justice system, seem to highlight an ongoing debate in the legal community on whether teenagers and children who commit violent crimes should face adult punishments or the focus should be on rehabilitation -- taking into account their often troubled upbringings. There are two pervasive points of view on the subject. The first says that when someone commits an adult crime, like murder, they should face adult consequences to ensure they are punished severely and society is protected. The other says that children's brains are still forming and that they are incapable of making adult decisions -- which is why society doesn't allow them to vote or serve in the military. Consequently, they shouldn't spend the rest of their lives paying for an offense committed in childhood, but instead should receive the services and guidance they need to be rehabilitated and, ultimately, contribute to society. Read More. |
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think