Adult society is often confused about how to deal with youthful offenders.
Societies are constantly trying to decide when teenagers should be judged as
adults and when as children. Finding this balance is particularly challenging
when deciding how to punish juveniles who commit serious violent offenses.
This unit explores whether juvenile offenders younger than 18 who are accused
of serious crimes-such as murder, rape, armed robbery, or kidnapping-should be
prosecuted and then punished as adults. It explains the evolution in the law
that led to thinking of children and adolescents as different than adults. It
traces the current "pendulum swing" between treating adolescents as youthful
offenders to be rehabilitated and as adults who should be held accountable for
their actions. The unit also presents a discussion model called "structured
academic controversy" for exploring the facts, arguments, and options
surrounding these issues.
Focus Question
In our democracy, should juvenile offenders younger than 18 who are accused of
serious crimes such as murder, rape, armed robbery, or kidnapping be prosecuted
and then punished as adults?
Objectives
Learn about the history and development of the juvenile justice system.
Compare and contrast juvenile and adult justice systems.
Analyze the reasons for supporting and opposing the prosecution and punishment
of juveniles as adults.
Identify areas of agreement and disagreement with other students.
Decide, individually and as a group, whether governments should prosecute and
then punish juvenile offenders younger than 18 as adults for serious crimes;
support decisions based on evidence and sound reasoning.
Reflect on the value of deliberation when deciding issues in a democracy.