Should minors who commit violent crimes be tried as adults?

Topic one: Should minors who commit violent crimes be tried as adults?

Violent crimes among the youths and minors have increased in the recent times. Last year the media reported of a teen that killed eleven people including teachers. The questions that arise is whether such a criminal should be tried in an adult or juvenile court. How about rapists, murders and violent robbers who happen to be youths? This topic is interesting because it is controversial, with some people opposing the idea of minors being tried like adults.  Critics cite their inability to know right from wrong, and the moral reason that they can be rehabilitated easily than the adults, while others indicate that it is important to hold each person (including minors) accountable for their own doings, and the fact that the adult court may be neutral than a juvenile court (Safran, 2012).

The topic concerns the public since it debates on children under the care of their parents. To the government, this topic is important as it can help revise its stand and approach towards actions that should be taken against any minor who engages in criminal activities. According to Bardes, Shelley and Schmidt (2008), juvenile courts rehabilitate rather than punish. This being the case, adult courts would ensure that apart from punishing, they are also rehabilitated and deterred from future crimes (183). Certain crimes like murder, rape and robbery with violence should be subjected to the due process of the law (Myers, 2005). The views are however contrasted by Elrodand Ryder (2011) who argues that adult courts punish juveniles more severely than the adults, and therefore should not be tried in juvenile courts (229). This research explains why some quotas advocate that certain criminal cases committed by minors should be tried in adult courts.

Topic two:  Should regulations regarding the use of cell phones while driving be standardized?

The use of cellphone while driving has contributed to the increase of accident as a result of distracted driving. Like the drink and drive effect, or distraction of the hands when eating or drinking while driving, the need to implement policies governing the use of mobile phones while driving is inevitable. The topic was selected because it affects the whole population’s safety concerns. If not checked it may lead to serious effects in future especially by careless drivers.

Noder (2009), indicates that the dangers of distracted driving which include visual, auditory, biometrical and cognitive can lead to serious problems (244). Standardization would ensure that drivers are well aware of the implications and consequences of using mobile phones while driving. Despite this fact, regulating the use of mobile phone while driving has financial implications (loss) to the drivers since some deals are made while driving (Hahn, Tetlock & Burnett, 2000). However, it should be noted that other communication means other than the mobile devices that are less likely to distract driving can be used. This paper therefore tries to prove that by putting in place laws that prohibit the use of mobile phones while driving may greatly reduce road accidents.

Topic three:  Should taxes on alcohol and tobacco be increased to help pay for rising medical costs?

In economic theory, the higher the price, the higher is the presumed quality, hence increased consumption (Parry 2009). This topic is significant because it affects the public. The affected persons are covered by the taxes paid by the non-consumers. Raising taxes would increase the prices of other products associated with alcohol and tobacco that non-users consume. Lower income citizens tend to use a bigger portion of their disposable income to finance alcohol and cigar smoking therefore would be the biggest losers.

If taxes were raised, the revenue generated would go a long way in subsidizing the care for the uninsured or even pump in funds for the Medicare and Medicaid schemes (Blank, 1997). It could also be used to increase awareness, provide better nutrition, as well as build the public health infrastructure and fund the biomedical research. The drawback of the tax system is that it affects the low-income earners, and leads to a bipartisan appeal. The generation of policies that promote individual responsibility should be encouraged as they remove the tax burden on the poor (Parry 2009). Despite this fact, the paper aims at explaining the need to raise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol to help cover the rising medical costs.












Bardes, B. A., Shelley, M. C., & Schmidt, S. W. (2010). American government and politics today: The essentials. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Blank, R. H. (1997). The price of life: The future of American health care. New York: Columbia University Press.

Elrod, P., & Ryder, R. S. (2011). Juvenile justice: A social, historical, and legal perspective. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Hahn, R. W., Tetlock, P. C., & Burnett, J. K. (2000). Should you be allowed to use your cellular phone while driving. Regulation23, 46.

Myers, D. L. (2005). Boys among men: Trying and sentencing juveniles as adults. Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers.

Noder, S. L. (2009). Talking and texting while driving: A look at regulating cell phone use behind the wheel. Val. UL Rev.44, 237.

Parry, I. W. (2009). Should alcohol taxes be raised. Regulation32, 10.

Safran, B. J. (2012). Juvenile justice policy from the perspective of international human rights. Cardozo L. Rev. de novo2012, 304-304.