Many believe that culprits of serious juvenile crimes should receive the same verdict as adults. From my perspective, I completely disagree with this notion.
First and foremost, the sentences given to adult criminals might not be appropriate in the case of young people. The main reason may lie in the difference in the intuition between people with distinct ages. While adults commit crimes mostly due to their vicious intentions, younger people, who are normally poorly aware of their behaviors, tend to break the law in an accidental way; therefore, it is required to have more appropriate treatment for these young culprits. For example, while adults normally have a planned method to commit crimes such as robbery or pickpocketing, juvenile ones such as petty robbery at stores may happen when a child suddenly becomes greedy. Hence a lighter sentence such as doing community service should be given in the children’s case. It is therefore believed that juvenile criminals should not receive the same treatment as adults.
Secondly, I believe young culprits should stand a chance to be re-educated. It can be explained by the fact that offenses happen mostly due to hard situations and struggles, not human nature; as a result, younger people, who still have a long life ahead, should receive an opportunity to correct their mistakes. For example, in Vietnam, several serious cases have been reported, such as murders, that involved children under 18 years old; however, unlike adults’ verdicts, these children just had to live under supervision in an educational center as governments believed the optimistic aspects of these juvenile criminals being better people. Clearly, young criminals should receive lighter sentences.
In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the belief stating that young criminals should be verdict in the same way as adults as there is a difference between two kinds of crimes and these young people should be given a chance to become good people when they have a long life ahead.