|← Decriminalizing Marijuana in Texas||Understanding Deviance →|
The case of Sullivan is that of a minor who has committed an offence which can be judged before the jury. The case is heard and heard on an offence of sexual battery by the judge in Florida. He is a young boy who was 13 years old. In such instances, the parents or guardians have a right to represent the child in court. In this case, Sullivan is alone and is ready to fight for his rights. At the court, the case is judged and he is sentenced to life imprisonment at the age of thirteen. When Sullivan petitions for his case before the jury, his request is not heard. The jury affirms his previous sentence, and without a word, he is confirmed to life imprisonment (Suvillan vs. Florida 2011). Has justice been served in this case?
It is true that all offences deserve punishment. The law breaker should be charged and sentenced according to the law. Once a person is charged, and the judgment is pronounced, he or she is subjected to the sentence said unless he or she pleads to the court of appeals. In this case, Sullivan has done an immoral act and committed a sexual offence. According to a report written by Bravin (2009), the judge says that the court has a right to judge any law breaker to a severe punishment. In this case, Sullivan deserved his life sentence. However, as much as Sullivan has committed a heinous crime, the state judge should have considered his young age. The sentences which people are given should have considered all factors. For instance, the sentencing of minors.
The sentence that is placed on the teenage boy is extremely harsh. The offence of sexual battery is captured under penal code 243.4 (Shouse Law Group, 2011). In this article, the prosecutor has to ensure that he has enough proof of the sexual offense against the offender. In addition, the prosecutor has to prove all the three point stated in the cap. However, such a convict is not sent to life imprisonment. He or she is given a sentence depending on the evidence provided. The convict can also be fined in exchange for his freedom. Hence, I agree that Sullivan sentence was too harsh for him despite his offence against the accuser.
On the other hand, the jury should give a chance to offenders who are below the age of consent. These are the people who will make up the nation tomorrow. Giving a life sentence to such a teenager is locking up his destiny. In this context, Sullivan spends all his life serving a sentence in prison. Such a convict should be given a sentence to punish him or her to reform. He should be put on probation for a while before being given a terminal offence. In the end, he may grow up to regret his mistake and be a better citizen and be resourceful to the community at large. The situation is made worse when the young man appeals yet his plea is not considered.
In the case of Graham, he was 16 years old when he committed a robbery. He was convicted of the crime and sentenced accordingly. Graham was given a 12 month sentence to be on probation. After serving his term, Graham was released. Graham did not stay for long, but was taken back to court six months after his released. The 16 year old Graham was charged with robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. He took time to appeal for his sentence. However, the judge declined and affirmed the same sentence even after his appeal (Graham vs. Florida 2011).
Graham’s case is a case that has taken enough time in court. This case has taken the right direction. As it is supposed to be, a minor should be given time to reform. However, Graham’s case is still debatable. This is because of the clause which defend minors, that they should not be given life sentences (Alito 210). The clause includes that minors convicted of other crimes other than death should not be given life sentences. It is true that this sentence is too long for a minor.
If the case is looked at in depth, then Graham deserved life imprisonment. It is said that “two wrongs do not make a right”. If Graham had considered his first sentence well, he would have reformed. A person can only be given one chance to change. If he does not change, he should be punished accordingly. In this case, Graham deserved to serve life time imprisonment. Such like convicts, are supposed to serve their sentence so that they can be an example to other people in the state. It is justified for him to serve the life sentence as he “wasted his second chance” (Fox News.com, 2009).
In conclusion, judgment of people under the age of eighteen has brought in a lot of discussion. Many people have different views on the best way to judge and punish minors. In this regard, the court always has a different varying sentence on different cases that concern teenagers. However, the court should not be intimidated. Every offender deserves punishment. Therefore, every offender should be judged, and he or she should adhere to the punishment given. The judges should also be careful to the person being judged. There should equality and no biases at all in the corridors of justice. This is because the judgment done in court not only affects, the defendant, but the society at large.