Lionel Tate lived with his mother, Kathleen Grossest-Tate, at a Pembroke Park townhome, which was a good neighborhood at the time of the crime. Lionel Tate was accused and convicted of first-degree murder as a juvenile of 12 years for killing his victim, Tiffany Eunick. While sleeping, Lionel came to her mother, reporting that Tiffany was not breathing. Kathleen stated in her testimony that she tried to resuscitate Tiffany after calling 911, but she was cold. An autopsy on Tiffany’s body revealed 35 injuries, including a severed liver, cracked skull, fractured rib, and brain hemorrhages. The home environment implies that he was unsupervised most of the time. Being a single mum and instances that she Kathleen had to be on duty during the night time decrees that Lionel could have had a lot of time in front of the TV where he could watch any kind of show he wished to. The psychological theory that applies to Tate’s case is nurture theory. His crime was a result of emulating the external environment (Fox, 2017). Even if wrestling is ruled out, there is no history of violence in Tate’s home; the violence must have been something he picked up in school or television.
Eric Smith, aged 13, lured Derrick Robie, aged four years, into the woods, beat him with a rock severally on the head, strangled him and sodomized him using a stick, and positioned the body in the woods. The two lived in the quiet small village of Savona, known to be a great place to raise children and where everyone knew each other. Neighbors in the area said that Eric exhibited red flags that were mainly dismissed because he seemed challenged. The prosecution felt that Eric was a budding serial killer, and he was to be put out of society. The defense concluded that Eric had rage disorder, and he might have been bullied to want to unleash rage. The defense’s position was that Tammy Smith – the accused mother, was taking Tridon while pregnant with Eric. The strong drug is used for the treatment of epilepsy with physical and neurological side effects to the unborn child. Just like Eric, the side effects would cause physical appearance disparities that could result in bullying. Eric was prosecuted as an adult and convicted of 2 nd -degree murder; earning him nine years to life is the maximum penalty for a juvenile delinquent. Nature theory best describes his criminality because of the internal influence from his mum. It may not have been genetically from the mother’s characters, but from the effects of the drugs the mother was taking.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Brayden Leroy Wright, aged 13, shot his brother of nine years in the head while both parents were in the house. The facts state that both children were playing cops and robbers in the living room when Wright shot his younger brother in the head for refusing to comply with his commands. As his brother lay on the living room couch watching videos on YouTube. An angered Wright went to the chair cabinet and knowingly took his father’s 9mm handgun that was loaded, walked to his brother and put the gum muzzle behind his brother’s left ear on the head, and fired. He then called 911 and reported that his brother was hurt after falling. By the time law enforcement had reached their home, the 9-year-old boy was in cardiac arrest. He died at Waynesboro hospital. The living conditions at their home seemed neglected, and authorities even went on to condemn n the home. The Snyders were the parents who had problems in their relationship which could be castigated upon the children. However, Wrights’s behavior was not new. The three remaining siblings had intimated that Wright always threatened them with the guns while the parents were at home. His criminal behavior adopts the extreme nurture position, which comes from the influence of the external environment. From the case, there is no history of the parents having criminal tendencies. The kind of environment that Wright grew up in must have been a violent one to capacitate him to think that using a gun was normal.
Agree or Disagree?
Prosecuting and convicting juveniles as a result of the severity of their crime is not agreeable because of the argued competency of the child’s intellectuality on the aspect of committing the crime. I disagree that children should be tried and convicted as adults because of the crimes they have committed. It believes that crime is committed based on different theories - predominantly nature or nurture theory, where criminality can develop early in a child’s life depending on their internal (genetically) environment or external environment (nurture), also known as empiricism. However, the argument here is to do with the development of a child’s mind and room for reformative behavior due to the development of a child’s mind. Another aspect that needs to be considered is the competence of the child’s mind to understand that what they’ve done wrong and the basis of what the consequences are. The juvenile incarceration system has a higher prevalence in reforming juveniles when compared to the adult incarcerated system. Therefore, the consideration for juvenile trials as adults needs to be considered in the line with brain development, the possibility of rehabilitation, and the child’s competency in committing a crime.
Biology is predominantly critical to the development of a child’s mind, while the child’s brain is directly linked to the behavior of the child. As such, scientific biological studies of neuroscience and neuroimaging can theoretically determine the behavior of a minor and differentiate it from the behavior of an adult or a person who has matured. The relationship between the age of a person and their maturation is not finite, but the law would unanimously contest that the legal age of becoming an adult is 18. Neuromaturation studies decree that the human brain well reaches maturation between the age of 25 and 30, give or take (Johnson et al., 2009). The phenomenon suggests that a person reaches maturity within that range. The argument for maturation suggests that when the mind is not fully developed, then there is room for reform. The prosecution, who pushed for Lionel to be tried as an adult, implied that it was not an accident, as evidenced by the serious injuries Tiffany sustained. Focusing on Lionel Tate’s life, he was of average IQ and can be seen as a violent child who got involved in fights, especially in school, where he got suspended about 15 times. These could be taken as red flags, especially when considered as a playmate for another child. Lionel’s defense pleads that the death was an accident as Lionel and Tiffany were both mimicking professional wrestling. The competency of a child’s mind to understand right and wrong should not only be based on their relative understanding of what is good from the bad. They have to relate to the fact that good and bad decisions have good and bad consequences and, again, not on relative terms. There are high chances that juveniles do not understand that the consequences of murder are life in prison (Young et al., 2017). They may understand that it is a sin or a bad thing to do, but their comprehension of the consequence of life in prison or death by the chair is limited. Therefore, it is not right to treat a child as an adult and convict them as an adult. The juvenile incarceration system is made for juveniles, and the system is designed to reform young minds. The prevalence of the juvenile incarceration system can at least match the fact that juvenile minds are still developing and have room for behavioral reform. Juvenile jails have a better chance of reforming behavior than adult prisons (Bishop, 2000). However, incarcerating a juvenile in an adult system denies them the chance to reform, as seen with the case of Lionel Tate, who, after release in three years, he committed another crime at age 18 before his probation was up.
The legislative portion of legality bases its assumption on the fact that an adult has attained the age of 18 because of their general capabilities of practicing adult activities like living on their own, working, starting a family. Of course, there is no definite age where an individual begins to do adult things, but the age limit is on the assumption of an average figure tied to experience and neural analysis of maturity capability (Jayaraman et al., 2015). The phenomenon has led to the assumption that everyone over the age of 18 can become an adult, even though some are early bloomers as others are late bloomers. The settling for a round figure gives society and governments an easier viewpoint in making decisions on policy, crime, and justice, among other aspects in the community. This aspect is the same thinking that is applied in the action of juvenile killers like Tate, Eric, and Brayden. Because they committed adult crimes or executed adult crimes, they are to be prosecuted as adults, therefore, attracting adult penalties. However, using the same assumption attracts argument on what are adult activities and what are child-related activities.
The strong point for juveniles to be prosecuted and convicted for crimes they have committed as juveniles and not adults is supported by the notion that they will reform and become useful members of society. Juveniles are strongly influenced to delinquency limitedly by DNA and, for the most part, the kind of environment that they have grown in. The relegation of juveniles being prosecuted as adults is also strengthened by scientific studies based on understanding wrong from right on a consequences perspective and the prevalence of juvenile systems to reform behavior. However, the weakness is massed on the science of maturation of the brain, being at least 2.5 to 3 decades long. The evidence and study in the matter of maturation and how it translates behavior is still ongoing and, therefore, cannot be used substantively or conclusively to argue against juvenile killers being tried as adults.
The implication of such a position in terms of reforming the system for juvenile justice and their trial as juveniles for dire crimes they may commit hopes to reform the system’s understanding of proper and fair justice for children who should be given a better chance at reforming their behavior. About the crimes and cases brought against Tate, Eric, and Wright, reforms can be adjudicated in line with the severity of the punishment offered but in the juvenile system. At least that becomes a better compromise for justice and the person to have committed the crime.
References
Fox, B. (2017). It’s nature and nurture: Integrating biology and genetics into the social learning theory of criminal behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice , 49 , 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.01.003
Johnson, S. B., Blum, R. W., & Giedd, J. N. (2009). Adolescent Maturity and the Brain: The Promise and Pitfalls of Neuroscience Research in Adolescent Health Policy. Journal of Adolescent Health , 45 (3), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.05.016
Young, S., Greer, B., & Church, R. (2017). Juvenile delinquency, welfare, justice, and therapeutic interventions: a global perspective. BJPsych Bulletin , 41 (1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.115.052274
Bishop, D. M. (2000). Juvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal Justice System. Crime and Justice , 27 , 81–167. https://doi.org/10.1086/652199
Jayaraman, J., Roberts, G. J., Wong, H. M., McDonald, F., & King, N. M. (2015). Ages of legal importance: Implications in relation to birth registration and age assessment practices. Medicine, Science and the Law , 56 (1), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0025802415590172
