Question

Children and adults are different, a fact the law routinely recognizes when juveniles are prohibited from buying beer or casting a vote. Indeed, family and juvenile courts were created more than a century ago with the understanding that children who had broken the law were less responsible and less culpable than adults. This insight affirms what every parent knows: children often lack the maturity to make sound choices rooted in good judgment.
Yet in recent years, many states have decided to sentence more children to the longer periods of incarceration normally reserved for adults, especially for serious and violent crimes. That impulse may be understandable in many ways. But to treat children as adults contravenes both timeless parental wisdom and an improved understanding of youth development and brain functioning.

Recent developments in neuroscience, for example, suggest that teenagers are neither competent to stand trial under the same circumstances as adults nor as blameworthy for their actions. Studies have confirmed significant age-related differences in cognitive processing affecting adolescents’ ability to make sound judgments.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, outlawing the death penalty for anyone younger than 18, saying that "from a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed.”

Still, if treating juveniles as adults in the criminal justice system proved effective, a more convincing argument could be made for the practice. But the evidence doesn’t support it. Studies comparing the recidivism rates of youth processed in the juvenile system with those handled in the adult system indicate that youth processed in the adult system are likely to re-offend more quickly and at higher rates. Moreover, studies show that a criminal conviction and incarceration have long-term adverse social, educational and economic effects on youth, and that community-based supervision and treatment are, except for the highest-risk kids, far more successful and appropriate for juveniles.

We know that overpunishing kids who do not pose a risk to public safety will actually increase their likelihood of committing crime. Thus for years, taxpayers have been paying huge amounts of money to create a public safety problem that could have been easily avoided — at a fraction of the cost.

For too long, we have defaulted to incarceration as a way to respond to all manner of adolescent behavior. It has been a misguided, expensive and harmful policy.

Which of the following best describes the author’s purpose in the text?


A

to explore both sides of the debate regarding sentencing juveniles as adults

B

to show how treating juvenile offenders as adults is ineffective

C

to emphasize why juvenile offenders are more likely to be rehabilitated

D

to stress how the criminal justice system is a burden on taxpayers

Answer 1

Answer:

I would say that the answer is definitely A bc he is talking about both sides and doesn't seem to choose any other side or make a different point