Juvenile Murders: Cases and Supporting Theories Essay

Exclusively available on IvyPanda Available only on IvyPanda

Several theories explain the factors that drive offenders to commit serious crimes such as murder. In most cases, the crime is an act of rational choice done to gratify personal desires or for personal gain (Sanderson, 2019). The extant theories that explain the act of criminal behavior fall into psychological, social, and biological categories. However, as numerous cases indicate, the social and psychological factors have the strongest impact in influencing criminal behavior, especially among juveniles. This reaction paper analyses three cases of juvenile delinquents that committed murder in different contexts.

We will write a custom essay on your topic a custom Essay on Juvenile Murders: Cases and Supporting Theories
808 writers online

Eric Smith

Smith murdered a 4-year old child when he was only 13 years old. He lured the young boy into a wooded area before strangling him and hitting his head with a large rock. Smith was found guilty of second-degree murder and was sentenced to the maximum term for juvenile offenders. He served three years in the juvenile jail and later in jail for young adults. Smith cited childhood bullying experiences that he experienced from older children and his family as the reason for his rage, which caused him to kill the child.

Lionel Tate

Lionel Tate killed Eunick when he was only 13 years old. The two were playing when Tate forcefully stomped on Eunick’s stomach, which damaged her liver. In addition, Eunick suffered a swollen brain, fractured skull, and broken rib. For these crimes, Tate was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. However, the sentence was later overturned and he was released on probation. Nevertheless, Tate continued with his criminal acts and was sentenced to 30 years in prison for violating the terms of the probation. This violation of probation illustrates Tate’s new identity as a criminal offender due to his previous conviction.

Brayden Wright

Brayden Wright fatally shot his 9-year old brother at their home. Wright, who was then aged 13 years, was acting as a cop in a game of cops and robbers. His siblings confirmed to the investigation team that Wright would occasionally point guns at them when they disagreed at home. In this case, Wright understood no negative consequences of deviant behavior because his parents never taught them. For his actions, Wright was charged with criminal homicide, while his parents were charged for endangering their child.

Reaction

The given cases show the outrageous, unjust conviction, where Brayden Wright was charged with criminal homicide because his parents did not teach the child about safety. Meanwhile, the first representatives were also convicted on the exact charges but were found to intentionally harm another individual. I firmly believe that the justice system and court should consider the background of the case, the age of the felons, and their mental state and punish the guilty individuals accordingly.

It is also vital to consider opposite opinions on the given matter. Deflem (2018) argues that individuals charged with murdering children should be convicted without regard to age. In this situation, it is understandable that giving leeway to children and passing a lighter sentence would not lead to criminal rate prevention. This can be seen from the example with Lionel Tate, who continued his immoral actions and was later found guilty of other criminal acts.

Nevertheless, the whole youth justice system was founded in order to prevent the criminal activity of children and adolescents. Many believe that while adults are capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, children’s brains are not fully developed and might especially be prone to the negative influence of external factors, such as poverty, misunderstanding, or abuse, such as in the cases mentioned above. Therefore, those who make convictions should understand this and judge the children accordingly.

1 hour!
The minimum time our certified writers need to deliver a 100% original paper

Social and psychological influences have a substantial impact on children’s growth and development. The sociological theories assume that criminal behavior is learned from the society and the environment. This assumption is particularly relevant for the juvenile, who look up to the society for inspiration and learning (Besemer et al., 2017). In many cases, social disorganization in families can drive most children to crime. These theories explain why children that live in dysfunctional households are overrepresented in crime.

According to psychodynamic theory, an individual’s personality depends on the childhood experiences. As a result, advocates of the psychodynamic theory suggest that delinquent children are constantly drawn to negative experiences that occurred in their childhood. Consequently, offenders lack social etiquette and have a high dependency on others. Eric Smith confessed that incidences of bullying by older children in school and his siblings and home led him to vent his anger on the young victim. This corroborates the psychodynamic theory that posits that negative incidences in childhood such as lack of parental care and love, bullying, and feelings of vulnerability often weaken the child’s ego. Having been chased from a camp because of bad behavior, he viewed the victim as a representative of the society that had rejected him.

Tate’s case illustrates how criminal labeling aggravates criminal behavior. Having been identified as the youngest murderer to be sentenced to life in prison, Tate saw no incentive of changing his behavior to conform to a skeptical society (Abrah, 2018). In his attempt to live up to the label, he committed other crimes that landed him back in prison. While Tate’s case would appear as a biological predisposition to criminal behavior, no evidence was adduced in the case to support these allegations. Therefore, Tate’s social labeling was the likely cause of his predisposition to crime.

Now, it is vital to consider the strengths and weaknesses of my point of view. Among the strengths is the fact that consideration of age and background of the case might be helpful not to punish children who are not able to comprehend their actions fully. Though there are young individuals who have predispositions to harm others and do not show any improvement, some individuals do not have a record of problematic behavior. Among the weaknesses is the lack of data that could prove that disregard of age in the prosecution of lighter punishments leads to better outcomes.

The implications of my discussion and point of view might have a positive effect on the youth justice system. With the help of focusing on the root cause of the criminal behavior, it will be possible to judge the adolescent accordingly. Brayden had not understood the negative consequences of deviant behavior because their parents did not instill in him the positive values of brotherly love and instead focused on securing their home against criminals. He perceived the positive consequences of the deviant behavior that included personal gratification for subduing a disobeying sibling as superior to all other negative consequences. Thus, children can be negatively impacted by the federal prisons, which might lead to even worse outcomes. Therefore, there might be other considerations, such as mental health institutions or therapies.

In conclusion, the social and psychological factors have the greatest impact on children’s behavior. This implies that early intervention such as social support for struggling families has a major impact on the children’s wellbeing well into their adulthood. Despite the widespread notion that biological predisposition is a key factor in influencing crime, these cases illustrate that proper childhood care could have stemmed these cases. Therefore, stakeholders should invest in family stability to prevent these incidences.

References

Abrah, P. B. (2018). Labeling theory and life stories of juvenile delinquents transitioning into adulthood. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(2), 179-197.

Remember! This is just a sample
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers

Besemer, S., Farrington, D. P., & Bijleveld, C. C. (2017). Labeling and intergenerational transmission of crime: The interaction between criminal justice intervention and a convicted parent. PloS One, 12(3). Web.

Deflem, M. (2018). Homicide and violent crime (Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance). Emerald Publishing.

Sanderson, S. K. (2019). Rethinking sociological theory: Introducing and explaining a scientific theoretical sociology. Routledge.

Print
Need an custom research paper on Juvenile Murders: Cases and Supporting Theories written from scratch by a professional specifically for you?
808 writers online
Cite This paper
Select a referencing style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2023, January 5). Juvenile Murders: Cases and Supporting Theories. https://ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-murders-cases-and-supporting-theories/

Work Cited

"Juvenile Murders: Cases and Supporting Theories." IvyPanda, 5 Jan. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-murders-cases-and-supporting-theories/.

References

IvyPanda. (2023) 'Juvenile Murders: Cases and Supporting Theories'. 5 January.

References

IvyPanda. 2023. "Juvenile Murders: Cases and Supporting Theories." January 5, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-murders-cases-and-supporting-theories/.

1. IvyPanda. "Juvenile Murders: Cases and Supporting Theories." January 5, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-murders-cases-and-supporting-theories/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Juvenile Murders: Cases and Supporting Theories." January 5, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-murders-cases-and-supporting-theories/.

Powered by CiteTotal, citation machine
If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda. Request the removal
More related papers
Cite
Print
1 / 1