Controversy surrounds the Lionel Tate case, where a twelve-year-old child caused the tragic death of a six-year-old girl during a wrestling match on March 9. Despite his young age, Lionel Tate was convicted of First-degree murder as if he were an adult. The debate revolves around whether it is fair to treat him as an adult due to his age. Some argue that trying children as adults for violent offenses sets an essential example for other children to comprehend the consequences of their actions. However, I believe that minors accused of violent crimes should be prosecuted and sentenced as minors instead.
Greg Krikorian argues that juveniles should not be treated as adults because they are considered “seriously impaired”. According to Krikorian, younger individuals have a diminished ability to understand the risks involved in making different choices and consider the long-term consequences of their actions. An example illustrating this is the case of Lionel Tate, who unintentionally caused the death of a young girl while imitating his favorite wrestler. Despite wrestling being widely recognized as staged, children may not comprehend this until they mature and gain more knowledge. In Tate’s case, he believed that hitting the little girl would not result in serious harm since wrestlers typically only suffer minor injuries and continue wrestling the following week. He did not intentionally cause harm or realize that his actions would lead to the death of the little girl.
When I was a teenager, my brother and I developed a strong passion for wrestling. We would playfully wrestle throughout our house, genuinely believing in the legitimacy of the sport. Wrestlers seemed unbeatable to me, which made me feel invincible too. Despite numerous people warning us about wrestling being scripted and dangerous, we completely ignored their advice. It is common for young people to ignore the potential outcomes of their actions and instead prioritize enjoyment and trivial matters like dinner plans – without realizing that one misstep could result in serious legal consequences.
In Marjie Lundstrom’s article titled “Kids are Kids,” she presents a case involving a 15-year-old boy from Yuba City who was sentenced to 26 years to life in prison for killing a minimart clerk. The boy argued that he was imitating a TV show where little girls rob a bank, further supporting the argument against treating children as adults due to their susceptibility to television and media influence. It is widely believed that children emulate what they see, as seen in the saying “Monkey See, Monkey Do.” Hence, this incident serves as an illustration of how television programs significantly impact children’s behavior, ultimately leading them towards committing violent crimes. However, it is important to acknowledge that the 15-year-old boy did not fully comprehend the consequences of his actions; otherwise, he would not have fatally stabbed the clerk. By increasing awareness among children about the outcomes of their choices, we can reduce the influence of TV and media on them and potentially discourage them from engaging in criminal activities.
There is a debate about whether children who commit violent crimes should be treated as adults. Tom Reilly believes it is important for the public to trust that a murderer will never have the chance to kill again. He suggests that juvenile murder suspects should be tried and sentenced as adults if found guilty. However, others argue that age should not matter when dealing with murderers and they should not be given another chance. Personally, I believe in giving children a second opportunity to learn from their mistakes and face the consequences of their actions.
During my first year of high school, I was arrested and taken into custody at the local police department for stealing a car. At that time, I didn’t comprehend the gravity of my actions or have any concern for them, so I continued to steal cars. As a result of being caught, I received one hundred hours of community service and one year of probation as disciplinary measures. Having personally encountered the adverse outcomes stemming from my behavior, I now grasp the repercussions entirely and have resolved never to engage in car theft again.
Juveniles, similar to adults, commit mistakes. However, due to their young age and limited cognitive abilities, many juveniles may not fully comprehend the potential consequences of engaging in criminal behavior. Unlike a 25-year-old adult who possesses better understanding, juveniles might not grasp the gravity of their actions entirely. From my perspective, it is unjust to treat juveniles as adults within the criminal justice system because they are still maturing and may lack full comprehension of the repercussions stemming from their choices or taking accountability for them.
