The juvenile may not consider the fact that the victim may have a family and friends just like themselves. I disagree with this argument because the juvenile understands that he is taking a life and taking a life is not only wrong but cruel. Not severely punishing this young adult could lead to more criminal activity and convictions due to the belief that punishment will be less severe because they are a juvenile. If the state does not punish the juvenile as an adult for the first severe crime, then certainly the next time that same juvenile commits another criminal act, the court system should consider adult punishment. Some other people would argue that the court should punish the parent and not the juvenile. How can parents control every action of their child? By the age of sixteen, most teenagers have their own cars, have gained much more freedom, and can make many more decisions without parental guidance. Saying that parents are the only ones that can influence their child to make decisions is not fair. Even though some parents are physically or even mentally abusive to their child, that does not condone the child to take out their anger on someone else.
Parents are not the only ones that can influence a child, but teachers, coaches, and most importantly friends are the ones that can influence juveniles to make decisions whether they be good or bad. I believe that if courts were to punish juveniles as adults for felonies committed, then it would defer other juveniles from committing crimes. The peer pressure to commit such crimes wouldnt be there knowing that the punishment would be much more severe. As a result, crime rates would decrease. Not only would punishing the juvenile as an adult save the public from one criminal but you could save us from many criminals being created and pressured into illegal activity throughout the United States. Many adolescents would have more caution to what they did and think about the severe consequences before they break a law.
One of the biggest issues of this argument is the death of a loved one. The loved ones of somebody killed by a juvenile want that young adult to be punished as an adult. They do not want for the juvenile to be convicted and then let out of jail at the age of 18. If they believe this person knew the justifications for their actions then they would want for them to have a lifetime to think about their mistake. They wouldnt want for this person to have another chance of hurting someone else or even committing the same crime. Justice is what people would want and expect to get at the expense of a loved ones life.
Finally, there are others who are opposed to juveniles being tried as adults and would say a kid is a kid, and not an adult, and should be punished according to their age. I would debate that by asking the question; is a 17-year-old murderer considered a kid? There has to be point where a persons age shouldnt have that much effect on the outcome of a crime. Whether they are 17 or 30, they still must receive the same punishment. I would assume if a juvenile killed one of your family members or friends then you wouldnt want the court to consider them only a kid.