In juvenile courts there are no juries and no trials by jury either. In adult courts the sentencing is much harsher and the chance of getting off the hook with some counseling is very slim. If a juvenile is defined as a person under the age of 18, how can you justify trying them in a court designed for adult offenders?
Efficiency[ edit ] Drug laws are effective[ edit ] Supporters of prohibition claim that drug laws have a successful track record suppressing illicit drug use since they were introduced years ago. With illicit drug use peaking in the s in the United States, the "Just Say No" campaign, initiated under the patronage of Nancy Reagan, coincided with recent past month illicit drug use decreases from Sweden is an excellent example.
Drug use is just a third of the European average while spending on drug control is three times the EU average. For three decades, [nb 1] Sweden has had consistent and coherent drug-control policies, regardless of which party is in power.
There is a strong emphasis on prevention, drug laws have been progressively tightened, and extensive treatment and rehabilitation opportunities are available to users. The police take drug crime seriously.
Governments and societies must keep their nerve and avoid being swayed by misguided notions of tolerance. They must not lose sight of the fact that illicit drugs are dangerous — that is why the world agreed to restrict them.
After so many years of drug control experience, we now know that a coherent, long-term strategy can reduce drug supply, demand and trafficking. If this does not happen, it will be because some nations fail to take the drug issue sufficiently seriously and pursue inadequate policies.
Many countries have the drug problem they deserve. Inefficiency[ edit ] Drug laws are ineffective[ edit ] One of the prominent early critics of prohibition in the United States was August Vollmerfounder of the School of Criminology at University of California, Irvine and former president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
In his book The Police and Modern Society, he stated his opinion that: Stringent laws, spectacular police drives, vigorous prosecution, and imprisonment of addicts and peddlers have proved not only useless and enormously expensive as means of correcting this evil, but they are also unjustifiably and unbelievably cruel in their application to the unfortunate drug victims.
Repression has driven this vice underground and produced the narcotic smugglers and supply agents, who have grown wealthy out of this evil practice and who, by devious methods, have stimulated traffic in drugs.
Finally, and not the least of the evils associated with repression, the helpless addict has been forced to resort to crime in order to get money for the drug which is absolutely indispensable for his comfortable existence.
The first step in any plan to alleviate this dreadful affliction should be the establishment of Federal control and dispensation — at cost — of habit-forming drugs.
With the profit motive gone, no effort would be made to encourage its use by private dispensers of narcotics, and the drug peddler would disappear. New addicts would be speedily discovered and through early treatment, some of these unfortunate victims might be saved from becoming hopelessly incurable.
Drug addiction, like prostitution, and like liquor, is not a police problem; it never has been, and never can be solved by policemen.
It is first and last a medical problem, and if there is a solution it will be discovered not by policemen, but by scientific and competently trained medical experts whose sole objective will be the reduction and possible eradication of this devastating appetite.
There should be intelligent treatment of the incurables in outpatient clinics, hospitalization of those not too far gone to respond to therapeutic measures, and application of the prophylactic principles which medicine applies to all scourges of mankind.
Consensus is growing within the drugs field and beyond that the prohibition on production, supply, and use of certain drugs has not only failed to deliver its intended goals but has been counterproductive.
Evidence is mounting that this policy has not only exacerbated many public health problems, such as adulterated drugs and the spread of HIV and hepatitis B and C infection among injecting drug users, but has created a much larger set of secondary harms associated with the criminal market.
These now include vast networks of organised crime, endemic violence related to the drug market, corruption of law enforcement and governments.
The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime has also acknowledged the many "unintended negative consequences" of drug enforcement. Danny Kushlik, head of external affairs at Transform, said the intervention of senior medical professionals was significant.
The Hippocratic oath says: Physicians are duty bound to speak out if the outcomes show that prohibition causes more harm than it reduces.3. Mature Mental Ability Begins Much Earlier The majority of states consider children to be adults at the age of This is a very high number because teenagers have full .
An argument for sending teenage criminals to prison is that itsaves money. An argument against sending teenage criminals toprison is that they are not mature enough to handle it.
Arguments about the prohibition of drugs, and over drug policy reform, are subjects of considerable controversy. The following is a presentation of major drug policy arguments, including those for drug law enforcement on one side of the debate, and arguments for drug law reform on the other.
The following is an excerpt from the new book Boy With a Knife: A Story of Murder, Remorse and a Prisoner's Fight for Justice by Jean Trounstine (Ig Publishing, ). There is another Lady. Prison reform; The Case Against Prisons one response to people being struck by cars in intersections is to consider preemptively sending some .
This article spells out some of the main arguments in favor of and against trying and sentencing minors as adults.
Sending them to prison would leave them out on many activities like not going.