Lionel Alexander Tate, who was charged with first degree murder, is America’s youngest citizen to be sentenced to life in prison without a chance of parole. In 1998 when he was 12, Tate battered six-year old Tiffany Eunick to death when attempting to duplicate professional wrestling moves that he saw on television. This surprising act is one of many instances that strikes a question: at what age should someone be incarcerated as an adult? There is much controversy over whether or not a juvenile who committed homicide should be incarcerated as an adult, based on the brain and psychological developments of adolescents that may affect their ability to conscientiously make decisions. The current debate consists of two sides: those who argue that juvenile offenders who committed homicide should be incarcerated as adults, and those who are opposed.
At this time, the majority of the states, including many people, seem to agree that older juveniles, such as those at the age of 17, should no longer be treated as a juvenile as they are almost a legal adult. However, many of these beliefs change when a juvenile younger than 17 commits a severe crime, such as homicide. When growing up, children are taught the difference between right and wrong, and the consequences of their actions. According to the article “Research Shows Toddlers Understand Right from Wrong at Just 19 Months” published on February 23, 2012 on the Association for Psychological Science website, even children younger than the age of two are able to comprehend the difference between right and wrong. If even a toddler can understand the difference between right and wrong, then a juvenile capable of committing a homicide can undoubtedly understand it as well, and is therefore a threat to the public and should be treated as one. In 2015, about 680 murders in the United States involved known juvenile offenders, which is about 7% of all known murder offenders. These numbers have continued to increase since 2011 for unknown reasons, yet laws protecting juvenile offenders from being incarcerated as adults continue to be regulated. As juvenile murderers become more prevalent, they should be taken more seriously and treated as threats that need to be managed. In addition to treating juvenile murderers as criminals rather than children, juvenile psychopaths should be regarded as a much more dangerous threat, as they feel little to no remorse for taking a human life, and may even gain pleasure from doing so. According to the “Psychopathy” article published on July 1, 2012 on the LEB website, “Psychopaths tend to have longer, more varied, and more serious criminal histories and, overall, are more consistently violent than non-psychopaths” (Babiak, et al.). Along with their lack of emotion, psychopaths are also incurable, as their condition is a result of abnormalities in the brain. Due to this, psychopaths that have committed homicide should be incarcerated as adults, regardless of their age, on account of their ability to become an even greater threat to the public. Those that deliberately commit homicide, should be held responsible for their actions and receive the proper punishments for it.
Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject
Order now
Nevertheless, there are still many reasons to support why juvenile offenders should not be incarcerated as adults. Although the majority of the states will incarcerate any adolescent as an adult if they commit homicide, there is no actual evidence that shows incarcerating juvenile offenders as adults improves anything. As a matter of fact, it is very ineffective and harmful. Despite the fact that adult incarceration of juvenile offenders is not meant to be a pleasant punishment, especially for those who committed homicide, time in prison should not be as arduous as it currently is, especially for an adolescent. According to the article “Teenagers in Adult Prison More Likely to be Sexually Abused by Staff, DOJ Finds” published on May 16, 2013 on the Think Progress website, juveniles imprisoned as adults undergo more abuse and sexual assault than adult inmates do. In addition to the very cruel treatment of adolescents in adult prison, many juveniles that were incarcerated as adults continue to commit crimes after being released. According to the article “Study: Throwing Kids in Jail Makes Crime Worse, Ruins Lives” published on June 17, 2013 on the Think Progress website, “Young offenders who were incarcerated were a staggering 67 percent more likely to be in jail (again) by the age of 25 than similar young offenders who didn’t go to prison” (Beauchamp). Evidently, incarcerating juvenile offenders, which is meant to prevent and cease crime, ironically does the opposite.
Furthermore, juvenile offenders who are released after being incarcerated as adults but have not continued to commit crimes, do not have an easy life either. Many of them have difficulty adjusting to adulthood and society as plenty have not completed their education and have to get a job, which is difficult due to their criminal record, and for many, lack of education; learn to work, live by themselves, and many more problems that others are not inconvenienced by. According to “The Challenges of Prisoner Reentry: Facts and Figures” published in May 2008 by The Urban Institute, many ex-prisoners face difficulty when looking for employment, and those who are employed usually obtain a low skill job and receive very low wages. It is evident that incarcerating juvenile offenders as adults should not be the first choice of punishment for an adolescent.
Unlike those who agree that juvenile offenders should be incarcerated as adults, the writer is opposed. Based on thorough research, the writer believes that juvenile offenders, should not be incarcerated as adults, but for good reason. Although juveniles who have committed homicide should be punished for their actions, they should be rehabilitated instead of incarcerated as adults. However, due to the fact that they are incurable, the writer believes juvenile psychopaths that have committed homicide should be confined in a mental institution, whereas juvenile murderers that are mentally stable should be given an opportunity to rehabilitate. According to the article “Do Rehabilitation Programs for Young Offenders Actually Work?” published on April 9, 2013 on the Guardian for Children and Young People website, well enforced programs can decrease recidivism rates by up to 40 percent, and even offenders that committed violent and sexual crimes have a chance of success. In addition to its great potential, rehabilitation costs significantly less for taxpayers. According to the article “Incarcerating Youth Could Cost Taxpayers More Than $8 Billion a Year” published on January 7, 2015 on the EJI website, 46 states showed the average cost for the highest priced confinement of a juvenile was $408 per day, while the price for individualized, community based programs only cost $75 a day. Contrary to popular belief, murderers can be rehabilitated. Jesse Reed was charged with first-degree murder in 1985 and sentenced to 27 years to life in prison. A teenager at the time, Reed shot and killed Joseph Bates when robbing him at gunpoint. Decades later, Reed deeply regrets his actions and is changing himself for the better. Criminals like Reed are evidence that even murderers are capable of rehabilitation and improving. Anyone willing to improve, even those that have committed even the worst crimes, are capable of rehabilitation and should be given the opportunity to do so.
Although both opposing views have great reasons to support their arguments, no one has been able to come to a final agreement due to many factors. Determinants such as the number of juveniles committing homicide, mentally unstable murderers, psychological and brain developments of adolescents, and effectiveness and cost of adult incarceration and juvenile rehabilitation, impacts the opinion of the writer and those who oppose or support the adult incarceration of juvenile offenders. As these precedents change or remain the same, the opinions of many will differentiate, but eventually, the solution to whether or not juvenile offenders should be incarcerated as adults will be apparent.
LGBT Tolerance In The Netherlands
Introduction
Amsterdam, the capital of the Netherlands, is frequently called the “gay capital” of the world. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001, eliminating any distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Following suit, other countries began emulating this law (Taylor), proving the Dutch as pioneering forces in LGBT rights for decades. The acronym LGBT represents lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. The first three letters are related to sexual orientation, which are collectively considered homosexuality. Homosexuals are people attracted to the same sex, while transgender men and women are those whose gender identity and expression differ from their birth-assigned sex. Gender identity encapsulates a person’s internal experience of their gender, and gender expression pertains to external presentations (“LGBTQ”).
Regarding LGBT acceptance, the Netherlands is viewed as one of the friendliest countries, as over 90% of the Dutch population agree individuals should be free to live true to their homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender identification (“Gender”). However, opposition exists in all narratives, and a nation’s diverse population comprises varied perspectives, manifesting in minority groups with negative views of the LGBT community.
Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject
Order now
Concerningly, these negative attitudes are more common among students, despite their increased awareness of LGBT rights. Disparities in tolerance towards different LGBT members remain, evident in the Dutch population being more accepting of homosexuals than transgender people. Generally, Dutch adults are positive towards the LGBT community, but adults with immigrant backgrounds, limited education, or strict religious affiliations are more prone to display negative attitudes (“Gender”). This paper strives to explore differences in the handling of transgender and homosexuals as well as investigating tolerance variances and the social and legal treatment of the LGBT community from a demographic standpoint.
Legally, LGB tolerance in the Netherlands is less contentious. As stated by the Chicago Journal of International Law, the Netherlands was the first to permit same-sex marriage on the same grounds as heterosexual couples. The lower house of parliament approved this law with a 190 to 33 vote in 2000, and the upper house of parliament endorsed the marriage law with a 49 to 26 vote (Patterson 2). One restriction facing gay men is the inability to donate blood, as men having sex with men are at higher risk of HIV infection. Even so, efforts to lift this limitation are underway (“Gender”).
While legally, most homosexuals receive equal treatment to heterosexuals, the question gifts whether they experience similar social treatment. According to Social Studies and Sociology professor Saskia Keuzenkamp at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, more of the population has grown to support homosexuality over the years (Keuzenkamp 34). However, she found that for approximately two decades, “5% of the Dutch public disagreed with the statement that homosexuals should be free to live their lives as they choose,” suggesting the acceptance ceiling for homosexuality has been reached. Although the Netherlands is known for acceptance, an anti-LGB climate persists in schools, with many young people feeling unable to openly express their homosexuality.
This reaction is good reason, since ‘gay’ and ‘fag’ are two of the most frequently used insults to question male students’ masculinity (“Sexual”). In addition, recent research conducted by the Public Health Service of Amsterdam shows that a fifth of young people in Amsterdam have negative perceptions of LGBT pupils (“Dutch”). The Dutch government is actively promoting more LGB awareness in schools. Since 2012, awareness of sexual diversity has been a compulsory part of sex education in primary and secondary schools. LGB organizations and schools across Europe have partnered to combat school homophobia (“Sexual”). Extra measures to fight LGBT discrimination include increasing by 50% the demand on offenses under general criminal law that include a discriminatory aspect. Safety networks have been created in conjunction with COC, a leading LGBT organization, to enhance the detection of homophobic violence and communication about ongoing cases and investigations.
Each region also conducts its own regional discrimination meetings (“Dutch”). Although transgender people in the Netherlands have less acceptance than homosexuals, there is growing acceptance for gender changes. Since 1985, it has been possible to change one’s legally registered sex in the Netherlands, but only after undergoing gender reassignment surgery and sterilisation (“Gender”). The initial gender change process was lengthy and difficult (“Controlling”).
While the prerequisites were eliminated in 2014, individuals are still required to select either male or female. Transgender people are safeguarded against discrimination by the constitution and the General Equal Treatment Act (“Gender”). In a journal by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research co-authored by Saskia Keuzenkamp and Lisette Kuyper, a researcher specializing in attitudes towards LGBT people, surveys indicate a high level of transgender acceptance. Nevertheless, it was revealed that 20% feel there is something wrong with individuals who don’t identify as either male or female; 21% would prefer not to associate with people who don’t identify clearly as male or female; and 57% prefer to know someone’s gender when they meet (Kuyper). Approximately 30% of transgender individuals in the Netherlands hide their feelings, generally due to fear or shame. Compared to the general Dutch population, the mental health of transgender individuals is weaker. With half of all transgender individuals experiencing mental health issues and 70% thinking about suicide, the majority still report happiness with their lives (“Gender”).
Counter Argument
While the Netherlands prides itself on being one of the most LGBT-friendly countries in the world, and the rights of LGBT individuals are equal to the general population, this doesn’t automatically mean there won’t be problems that may arise. Being a country of 17.08 million people, there are bound to be different perspectives and ways of thinking. Among those 17 million, some people harbor negative feelings towards LGBT individuals. These negative attitudes can be found more among the younger and older generations, men (in comparison to women), the less educated, the strongly religious, and Dutch citizens with ethnic minority backgrounds such as the Turks and Moroccans (“The Social”).
Despite the multitude of laws protecting LGBT individuals from homophobia, several incidents where homosexuals have been discriminated against have happened. While the majority of the population say they support LGBT rights, when the clothing brand Suitsupply released a new ad campaign depicting two men being affectionate with each other in early 2018, many of the ads were vandalized. The company lost many followers and received hundreds of complaints and curses via email (Pieters). Violent incidents towards homosexuals are not decreasing either. In 2009, there were 2,009 reports of homophobic violence, whereas in 2016, there were 1,574 reports (Dittrich).
Conclusion
A journal from the Williams Institute shows that, in general, countries accepting of LGBT people are becoming more accepting. The Netherlands was among the top five most accepting countries. From 2004-2009, the LGBT Acceptance Index Score was 5.84 for the Netherlands, and from 2009-2013, it was 6.67, showing an improvement in Dutch tolerance (Flores 16, 27). Legally, LGBT individuals have the same rights as the general population. Socially, while the majority are accepting and treat them like any other ordinary person, some people have drastic reactions and do not treat them well. The Dutch government is working hard to prevent homophobic incidents by promoting more exposure in schools and the police force. There’s even a special squad called the “Pink Police Force” of LGBT police officers and allies who specialize in investigating homophobic activities (Dittrich). Currently, the Dutch still view transgender individuals differently from homosexuals, and homophobia remains present in certain individuals. Nevertheless, LGBT tolerance, while already high, is improving year by year.
