Excellent Posts

Great job class! I enjoyed reading your postings and discourse. There were a few who did not meet the deadline. Make sure that you plan accordingly and to keep track of all deadlines.

"Time is the coin of your life. It is the only coin you have, and only you can determine how it will be spent. Be careful lest you let other people spend it for you." Carl Sandburg

No one is Normall

Everyone is different in their own specific way. There is no true definition of "normal" besides not standing out. That is not a way to live and no one is normal. People should be free to express themselves as they see fit. There are many ways for people to feel unwanted or neglected in this society. This is a form of discrimination if we continue to outcast people who shouldn't be. This is sad how we, as people, still judge people even if we do not mean to. It is in our nature to think something of someone by the way they look. People have a right to be or act as they wish and people should not criticize them or make fun of them. What they should be doing is encouraging them for being themselves because many people do not have the courage to do what they are doing. An example would be the homosexual people of this world. People are still hiding their sexual orientation because they do not wish to be judged or, even worse, physically and mentally hurt. People have to learn that being an outsider is alright because no one is normal. Everyone is an outcast in their own way but people have to learn to embrace it and let everyone feel free.

Gender norms

Society set different  rules for each gender of what can each do. Somehow everyone just got use to this and this is what we call now as gender "norms." For instance, men have to walk a certain way or else he will be judged. Everyone has to act normal. However is there even such thing? The concept of normality was created by society just like everything else in this world. Therefore should we comply to this principles set by people who are not very open minded? These people who think killing others is completely normal because they do not comply to the gender norms. Everyone should not fear being themselves because no one really has a control over that. Although throughout the years, many had tried to hide it because it is not "normal." Judith Butler states that people sees something that is unusual and it causes them to feel uncomfortable. When people are uncomfortable they usually do something such as being angry or judge someone. No one should fear being themselves. 

No one is normal

No one in this world in normal. Everyone is different and has their personality to show who they are. I believe that no one should feel like an outcast in our society. Not even race, gender, or gays should feel discriminated. Why should our world continue hurting those who are different? Like how Judith Butler mentioned, "Why would someone be killed by the way they walk?" Its insane how just by a walk, others feel that it must vanish. Who cares by the way people walk, talk, or act. thats who they are. No one should be able to tell someone not to do or how to be. We shouldn't be sexiest in our society in 2015. We all need to understand the fact that we are who we are and we must be treated with respect. 

Who Defines Normal? And What is Their Authority?

The world as we know has diversified tremendously especially in the past century. Things like women in lines of work that men usually occupied, more openly gay people etc. So how do we define a person as normal. The answer people usually go to would be the kind of people from their society or clique. With all these different forms of communities shows diversity, but yet still today all we see in the news if white cop kills black man, women make 20% less then men in the same exact job. It is hard to see who writes these norms and who controls them. In the end of the day people still follow them so is it our fault or the people in "charge." In Judith Butler's video clip she stats that "It seems to me that we are talking about an extremely deep panic or fear, an anxiety that pertains to gender norms." Some people might see something or someone that does not match the norms that they are used to and might cause them to be uncomfortable about it. People might take this discomfort or anger to the extreme as try to maybe show that this certain group is better then yours and you should be like us. Not everyone takes this route though some understand people's differences and accepts them. So people that do act out like the clip with Butler and do things like killing that boy because he was "different." I think people like this feel as if their power is threatened and that someone being different from them challenges that power.
All people should be willing to accept the diversity this world brings us. People should not have to worry whether they fit in, but worry about other matters like what major they want in college. People should not have anxiety on whether someone accepts me because I walk or talk differently.

Should there be a such thing as "Normal"

I ask the question should there be a such thing as “normal”? And to that question I would have to say no. I would have to say no because everybody is different, even though they might dress the same, walk the same, talk the same or act the same that doesn't mean that they all the same. We all have a different style, act, walk and tone but some may just be similar. The one being the most similar seems to be the “normal” because everyone of one gender does it or because it's the one that people have been doing the longest. But what or who sets what is “normal” or not.
In Judith Butler’s video she speaks about a boy who had a feminine walk that is until he was killed by other boys who didn't like his feminine walk. Butler explains that the boy has had the feminine walk since he little and it started to exaggerate as he got older. Soon the boy was thrown off a bridge and killed by other boys for the way he walked. Butler then asks why does a boy have to be killed for the way he walks. And I can't answer the question myself but I might have a reason.
The boy was killed for his walk which seemed not normal for a male but who or what said and demonstrates a “normal” walk for males. Gender sets these “normal” roles that one should do based on his gender. The reason I believe that the boy was killed for his walk was because the other boys were afraid of the walk becoming normal for males. Males are taught how to walk like a “male” just by observing and that sets the “norms”. People based what is normal by the majority. If males started to walk in a feminine way then sooner or later the walk will become normal and that's what the boys feared of the walk becoming so they killed the boy. Genders are supposed to be walk a specific way, talk a specific way, act a specific way and dress like a specific way because if they don't then they will not be seen as normal but different and that's what people are in fear of being seen as. A male doesn't want to be seen as “gay” or “homosexual” as the same goes for females.
  In the end a person shouldn't be killed for doing something that isn't considered normal to them as one thing may be normal to one country or person but unusual to others. People need to realize that everything changes including the “normal” way of doing things and therefore there shouldn't be a such thing as something to be considered “normal”.

Gender Norms

              Human life is very special and important. Someone losing their life is very unfortunate under any circumstance. Judith Butler states in his article Phylosophe that " he walks with what we call a "swish"-a kind of . . . his hips move back and forth in a "feminine" way. Someone being murdered for the way they walk is very sad and should not be taken lightly. I believe that the kids that killed the young man did not understand or even cared to understand why he walked that way, and that since they did not understand why he walked that way they were afraid and felt uncomfortable because they were not used to anyone being that way. Another reason why I think they killed that kid was because they were on a masculine power trip and they did not want  to let a kid they thought was to girly to go on living because it might have made them look bad for not proving themselves. I also think that the kids might have gotten caught up in the moment of beating up the kid and ended up throwing him over the bridge. Since the kid was not acting the same way a "regular boy" would act the other boys felt the urge to end his feministic qualities. Someone not complying with their gender norms is not an excuse to kill them.

What is "Normal"?

Prior to recent years, it has been determined that men and women are different. They react to situations differently, speak differently and move differently. Therefore, the two different genders have been given two different roles in society. Men bear the duty to protect and provide for the family because of their naturally sturdier build. Women, on the other hand, are seen to have a gentler attitude and the ability to express their feelings in a clearer manner. Accordingly, they are inclined to care for the children as well as undertake the majority of household chores. This is what society generally saw as normal.
However, over a couple of decades, this definition of "normal" took a sharp turn and transformed drastically. Men, as well as women, are now providing for their family. Furthermore, women have almost no constraints on what jobs they can acquire. Two women are running for President as I type this. Moreover, it is popularly believed that it is very difficult to live in today's era without both sexes holding a profession. The traditional responsibilities of women have also been shared with men. Males are now chefs, and spectacular ones at that. The most popular example being Gordon Ramsay, the despised yet beloved host of the primetime competition "Hell's Kitchen".
Considering the extraordinary transformations that gender roles have taken during the last decades, it's completely blasphemous that someone was killed for the feminine fashion in which they walk. Whole civilizations have altered their way of viewing men and women and now they have equal opportunities in pursuing whatever their goal might be. Yet somehow, for something as simple an action as walking, conventional gender norms are aggressively forced upon some with fatal consequences if he/she fails to comply.
The only explanation one can imagine is that the robust and deeply rooted gender norms of how men and women should behave has yet to mix with each other in society the same way their roles have. The incorporation of behavior traits into each gender's norms has yet to occur. Or perhaps it has but it is not yet popularly assimilated into society. It is not yet prevalent. Humans have a desire to fit in, so if a group begins to persuade others to change their beliefs about gender norms, instances such as the one told by Judith Butler would eventually cease to ensue. Slowly but surely, the gender norms as a whole, will cease to exist. It all depends on public belief.

Gender Pride

Being out of place is something that every person would not want to feel, but it cannot be helped if the case was about sexuality. A lot of people in this world are bothered by things like him being gay or her being a lesbian. In the video clip of Judith Butler's speech, she asked a question, "Why would someone be killed for the way they walk?" It was actually not fair for the guy who was killed just by walking differently. In addition, the group of guys that Butler mentioned was obviously full of pride. Furthermore, they do not want their masculinity to be stained by some random guy walking like a girl. It does not make sense at all, I mean that everyone here on Earth is different and has their own unique qualities like a trademark for their entire being so why exterminate someone that is different from you and he or she does not even bother you. This should be prevented in order for other scenarios such as this to not happen ever again. People should just respect and mind their own genders to begin with and it is pride what drives these unreasonable actions to take place.

We all have different qualities and there is no such thing as normal. We are all people. We live on the same planet. We all breath the same air. If people where to look on these cases then there should be no problem at all. I do not get the fact that the guy who walked different has to pay the debt that he did not even have right from the beginning. Why should different people pay the price of being unique?

Gender Roles

I do believe that there is a correlation between coercion and gender norms. In the society that we live in today, we are taught sexist ideals from media, family, and sometimes even friends on a daily basis. Unfortunately, for a majority of my life I grew up thinking strictly by gender norms. For example, my clothing- if I do not dress "girly" then I will not be liked by boys. However, I soon began to realize that women are not objects for men- we are equal, leading to me becoming a feminist. I think that gender roles are instilled in every person around the world due to our past history and how it continues to flow into our modern world and sadly will not disappear anytime soon.

Judith Butler states that "...he walks with what we call a “swish”—a kind of . . . his hips move back and forth in a “feminine” way". This displays gender norms and how being "feminine" is an insult and seen as being weak. Tragedies have and continue to emerge because of people criticizing others for their sexuality and essentially not complying to their gender norms, and for some reason, feel the need for them to be eliminated, as like the boy who Judith Butler spoke of.

There is no such thing as "normal".

Our society is going through several changes that people are not ready for. For examples, for some reason there are some individuals that are scared or not accepting the fact that there is a diversity within the population. It is ignorant to think that everyone has to be exactly the same and act "normal". There is no such thing as "normal" in our society. This word has a different representation to every person because they have there own image of the perfect of how men and women are suppose to be. Gender norms and stereotypes cause conflict and arguments to arise because people choose to show their individuality and personality to stand out within the crowd. In a speech written by Judith Butler called phylosophe she shares a story of a young man that was killed just because he was different and did not fit the "normal" characteristics of a man. Killing a man can not be justified by the fact that he acted feminine or had a certain hop to his walk. Who are we to judge who is as a person? We all have the liberty to express ourselves however we like. Our society needs to realize the more they push and support this conduct, we will see some terrible outcomes that will be hard to prevent once the damage is done. Everyone deserves the right to be treated the same way as everyone else.

Normality doesn't exist

In the YouTube clip the author highlights the main question of why should anyone be murder for acting different or "Feminine". I believe our society has reached a level of stupidity that is far from regaining back due to our now customs of how things are scoped. To be different or al least not like everyone else should not be judge or even worse violently cease. Is it a sexist thing? Or a simple manly domination? Who knows? Bottom line is that we aren't sexiest , we have learned to custom that perspective through a revolutionary society. Manhood shouldn't depend on putting others down, but on standing for the basic human rights of both genders and reach a comprehensive establishment in our society.

Gender Norms

Gender norms and coercion portrays an enormous deal in our society and culture but it should not have to be that way. There shouldn't be such a thing as a gender norm for masculinity and femininity. You should be able to do and act however you want and absolutely no one should tell you what to do. There shouldn't be a fear or panic if you don't comply with gender norms. No one should feel threatened, killed, or hurt just for being themselves. That poor boy that died in Maine because of the way he walked and that his swish because more pronounced does not give anyone the right to end it. He has the right to walk and act like he wants, it's his life and he does what makes him happy. Those boys that expunged and negated the boy's walk by beating him and throwing him over a bridge to die are examples of the all the ignorance that revolves in society. That type of behavior is unhuman and cruel. People teach kids to follow the gender norms and that automatically leads to them rejecting people that aren't "normal." Everyone is unique and there is no such thing as being "normal." 

Being raised in a "machista" way of life, I endure countless moments in which I was tought over and over that the man is who must endure all the tough decisions deciding on every aspect. Providing shelter, food, protection, future and having everything set for the family. I remember since a child I was raised to work in so many conditions and not be afraid of the people around me. I remember being scared of getting near machines that would kill you in a instant and noticing that they werent used properly but you needed to use them in that manner. I would be made fun of by the people around me. Both sexes have been given an image of how they are supposed to act and if they dont act that way, they are automaticaly portrayed as weak and the one to torture since he would do nothing.
It comes back to the statement said by Judith Butler when she says  “Why would someone be killed for the way they walk?”. Over the years I witnessed many of the people I know be treated less of a person because of their sexual orientation. One of them was a cousin of mine who I remember telling me he was terrified of telling his family because our families are extremely "Machista". In school he was bullied for his preference and the activities he likes to be involved in. Society has given a image that the man is the "protector" while the woman is "defenseless". These customs and ideas have brainwashed us through many forms including social media. Have you wondered why they only show females portraying the housekeeper rather than males?

Growing up in the environment I was in, I learned a lot about gender norms and what was expected between genders. I come from a very old fashioned " men are superior than women" type of environment. In my community the men are supposed to basically dominate all aspects of the females life and seeing that implemented on my sister made me really resent gender norms. I can see clearly that gender norms are wrong, they are based on sexism and should be excluded from society. Humans can be unpredictable we should not expect anything from anyone. The main thing us as people should be doing is treating others the way we want to be treated. The kid in Butler's "Phylosophe" that was killed because he was feminine did nothing wrong. The children that attacked him and threw him over the bridge were harassing him only because they didn't like him or they were uncomfortable with the unknown. This is a big flaw in our society and portrays us as shallow minded. Our new generation needs to learn from our old generation and  the mistakes they did. Being so close minded only makes things worse and divided us  humans, it causes sexism, racism, stereotyping; all things that start conflict. Maybe if the world wasn't so close minded, the kid with the walk would probably still be alive.

Gender Norms

In this society gender norms plays a huge part of our life. Many people care so much of what others think. Many people fear of what others have to say about them, they want to be "normal." Everyone is born with different characteristics , some people talk different , some people have different tones in there voices. I like the quote of Judith Butler when she says  “Why would someone be killed for the way they walk?” I totally agree with Judith and, I ask why? Why would someone kill someone else just for being themselves? Everyone is different , everyone has there own way , there own style , everyone is unique in there own type of way. I speak for myself as well , I accept who I am and everyone's opinions don't matter to me because at the end of the day I'm going to do what makes me happy. Sometimes your family won't support you , however there's other people there to support you , there are friends, teachers, even the counsellors. There's always people to talk to. It's okay to be different because no one in life is perfect. However I speak for myself again I know how it feels to everyone look at you different for your family to turn your back on you and try to change you, it's difficult but there's always a way. Suicide should never come to my mind and no one should kill another person just because there different , because there different as well.

Gender Norms

Sadly, there is a connection between complying with gender norms and coercion. Because of gender norms, society has learned to judge, criticize, tease, and even murder other people, as mentioned in Butler's "phylosophe", because they are different and do not follow the norms of society. It is sickening to see people hide who they truly are because they are afraid of their safety and well-being. It is not right for people to lose their lives because of their sexuality or any other differences. I believe that everyone has the right to have their own opinion; however, criticisms should not come to a point where that person feels threatened or giving that person thoughts of suicide. For example, a few years ago, the news reported a young college student committing suicide because he was made fun of his sexuality. This is wrong and does not show a good example of how our society works. During this day and age, people should be able to come out of their bubble and be able to express themselves publicly without being judged. They should not be able to feel threatened or uncomfortable just for being different.

Gender Norms 

Gender norms and coercion play a dramatic role in the maturity of the youth and adult in our society today. In the 21th century we have already shown that we are more than capable of accepting different ideas and forms, but even now people are criticized both verbally and physically just because of the way they act, speak, or even look. It's a right that anyone is entitled to share their own opinion but when another is damaged in the process is where the line is drawn. No one should have the right to state what is the gender norm and how another should live their life, this is the basis of what our country was founded upon. So when a boy is killed simply for the manner in which he walks shows me that our society if scared to conform, scared to be removed from their comfort zone so they resort to animal instinct and eradicate the abnormal, but what is normal ?

Judith Butler tell the story of this boy who died in Maine and states "We are talking about an extremely deep panic or fear, and anxiety that pertains to gender norms". Masculinity has always been about a demonstration of strength and when one challenges this idea and does not comply or follow the course they are looked down upon by society even when is is not a fault of their own. My question is who set this standard? Who had such an influence that they could set a standard or rule for all men ? 

Gender Norms

Gender norms in society should not exist. There cannot be a specific way a man or woman should look, everyone is unique in their own different way. Just because a person walks a certain way, talks a certain way, or is just different in general does not take away from the fact that he or she is a human being. People may all look and act different, but at the end of the day, we all cry, sweat, and bleed. Judith Butler asks "Why would someone be killed for the way they walk?" and the real question is, why should someone be killed for the way they walk? People are people and there is no reason why anyone in the world should be punished, killed, or hurt in any way for being different than someone else. Just because someone is into different things, or sees the world from a different point of view does not mean they should have to be killed or punished somehow for them just simply being themselves. The society is unfair. Society portrays people in the United States to have to look and act a certain way when it really should be up to the person themselves to determine exactly what they it they want to do with themselves.

Judith Butler also explains "the walk became more pronounced, and it was more dramatically feminine, and he started to be harassed by the boys in the town." A person who is treated differently or hurt because of a specific way they walk, talk, or act is unfair and should be stopped. Incidents like these that are happening all over the nation are only frightening young people. What I mean by this is that for example, if teenager or someone younger is watching the news and they see an incident like this happen, they will be scared to act as themselves. People all over the United States will not be able to express themselves, and love themselves without the constant fear of possibly being beat or punished for it.

People should not be scared to do what they like, or act the way they want. For a person to walk down the street and have to fit the way a man/woman "should" look like just so they won't get threatened or hurt in any way is outrageous. Everyone should be allowed to express their ideas and follow their dreams without having to face a consequence for it.

Gender Norms

Throughout the years society has become more opened minded about sexuality and gender norms. Gays are accepted more in society than they were a couple centuries back. Even though we have made progress in excepting gays into our community there are still many people that are against homosexuals.

A phrase that stood out to me from Judith Butler was “you will die or I kill you now because you do not comply.” I think what she is trying to say is basically that if you’re an outsider you do not belong in this world. People that think this way are in my opinion ignorant. I believe that no one should be judged on their sexual preferences. Everyone has different opinions on what their gender norms are. Gender norms are usually based on cultural background. Society needs to understand that many things have changed throughout the years including norms.

No one should use coercion to benefit their gender norms. If anyone disagrees with the way a person feels they should not appeal to violence under any circumstances. Killing someone for not meeting someone’s gender norms is immoral.

Gender norms and coercion play an important role for situations like the one Judith Butler describes in the YouTube clip, "phylosophe" because it describes certain behaviors that our society considers inappropriate and unacceptable, and for this reason most people feel the need to stare, judge, and sometimes persuade the person to do something against their will by using threats. Many people hide who they are because they fear of not being accepted by others, and most of all, they fear for their own safety. Butler says, "If someone says you must comply with the norm of masculinity, otherwise you will die,...then we have to start to question what the relation is between complying with gender and coercion", this comment stood out to me because I live with people who have that mentality that men and women must behave and act a certain way. As a kid, I was very tom-boyish, and growing up I was told to not act that way or else boys wouldn't want to date me, I had to buy blouses instead of t-shirts, I couldn't do outside chores only the chores that involved me being inside the house, and I had to wear make up everyday to "present myself nicely". The boys in my family must always be strong and tough because where my dad and uncles grew up, which was in Mexico, many homosexual boys are beaten up and often killed because they do not follow the appropriate behaviors of being a "man". Of course my parents were a little open minded and didn't change their kids that much, but from this I do understand why certain individuals would feel threatened. But no one should be killed or harmed for they way they talk and walk, there is no exception.

The Relation Between Gender Norms and Coercion

The fear of being different than what is expected, has tormented many individuals to be someone they are not. Gender norms and coercion play an important role in occasions like these because they involve behaviors that are considered acceptable or appropriate for a person based on their gender and the act of persuading someone to do something with the use of force. Judith Butler says, "We are talking about an extremely deep panic or fear, an anxiety that pertains to gender norms". I agree with Butler because in many cultures, gender norms are part of their culture. They are expected to follow the appropriate behaviors of being a female or male and when one is different to what is expected, individuals feel threaten and are fearful. 

Our society has a mind set in what behaviors are acceptable, so when one is different, they immediately make judgments. Older generations have been close-minded for a long period of time, teaching their children the "correct" behaviors. There is no exception in using force or threats to pressure someone to do something. No one should be killed for the way they walk, for the way they look, or for the way they talk. 

Assignment 2

Judith Butler rhetorically asks, “Why would someone be killed for the way they walk?” Thus, “what the relation is between complying with gender [norms] and coercion[?]”

Begin a thread in which you address the question above, followed by two responses to other threads. Make sure that you make references to the text, either from the transcript of “phylosophe” or from the YouTube clip www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLnv322X4tY, in your original thread (You may also cite direct or indirect experience). 

In your subsequent responses, you do not need to cite the transcript or the video clip; but, I am looking for authentic conversation and dialogue, so you will need to have one original posting (new thread) and two responses to your peers. Your deadline for this assignment is Saturday, April 18^th 2015 @ 12:00 A.M. which basically means Thursday evening. If you are unfamiliar with the terms “coercion” and “gender norms,” I suggest that you Google the terms. For, they are used often in academic discourse and this module.

Findings on Teenage Brain

In Paul Thompson’s article “Startling Finds on Teenage brains” states that research has shown that the teenage brain is far from adulthood. Therefore why should juveniles be charge as adult when there brain is still in the process of developing? Teens who committed murder should not be thrown in jail due to their undeveloped brain. One of the biggest finding about the teenage brain is that massive loss brain tissue occurs in teen years. Teens make impulsive decisions and this decision should not be held against them. However they should still be held accountable for their actions.  

Life sentence towards juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Teens should be given a chance to redeem themselves even if they committed a crime. The teenage brain is not like an adult who can control their impulsive behavior. As teen age through experience their brain is developing. Therefore they should not put in jail for life because they still need experience. Once they gain enough experience they will understand the extent of their actions. Teens should still be definitely be punished. A reasonable punishment could set them on the right path.

There are plenty of factors and reason why teens commit this crime. It could be there environment, culture and peers. Therefore, we should look into their background when deciding on their punishment. Deciding just base on their actions is very unreasonable. Teenagers was probably engage in peer pressure and this is one the big factor of crimes around the world. This teenagers who couldn’t resist peer pressure are definitely have an undeveloped brain. Therefore teens should not be charged as an adult especially sentencing them in jail for life without the chance of parole.

Good Job

Excellent job to all those who stepped up and began exploring a new medium.

"Juveniles Don't Deserve Life Sentences" A.K.A: the death penalty

        We all can confess to making unwise decisions and mistakes, and along with that a punishment from our parents our maybe the school. The big difference in these cases are that these teens are actually murdering people which they deserve a far worst punishment because the act is larger. Unfortunately the only thing that we can think of is sentencing them to life in prison without parole no matter if they feel remorse or show that they have changed. In Gail Garinger's article "Juveniles Don't Deserve Life Sentences" she states that " As a former juvenile court judge, I have seen firsthand the enormous capacity of children to change and turn themselves around. The same malleability that makes them vulnerable to peer pressure also makes them promising candidates for rehabilitation." Murdering someone is one of the worst crimes one can commit, so although I  say that juveniles don't deserve life sentences I don't mean that they're punishment should be taken lightly, but at the same time being young you make a lot of mistakes and you are constantly learning from all the mistakes that you make. There should be a new kind of sentencing made for juveniles and also a mandatory rehabilitation center because although murder is a big crime, if we sentence them to life in not a juvenile detention center but an adult prison without parole then that is no different then giving them the death penalty in which I would prefer over sitting in jail for the rest of my life since I was in some cases 11. There are some cases where juveniles do not have any remorse and do not care at all about what they did or how it effected others , and those are the juveniles in which do not deserve a second chance or ever be eligible for parole.

Juvenile Sentencing

Everyone has different opinions and standpoints when it comes to sentencing juveniles. The essential question is, should juveniles be sentenced as adults? Juvenile sentencing is one huge contradiction as some teenagers, depending on the state they live in, are sentenced as adults while others are not. Teenagers should not be sentenced as adults under any circumstance. However they should be held accountable for the crime they have committed as it is unfair for any crime to not face any consequence.

The main reason as to why juveniles should not be sentenced as adults is because they are simply not adults. Their brains are not yet fully developed at the early ages of 12-18. Jensen affirms the part of the brain that is used for "executive decision making," or the front of the brain, is being developed during the teenage years. Jensen also states the last organ in the body to be completely developed is the brain. It is unfair for a teenager to be sentenced as an adult when they are not old enough to make adult decisions. Not only that but teenagers are constantly under pressure and scrutiny by their  friends, teachers and parents. Teenagers are known to act off of emotion and impulse leading them to make decisions they can soon regret. Aside from that, teenagers are easily influenced by their surroundings. Someone who has so much going against them should not be trailed as an adult. On top of that, teenagers are not given the same rights as adults. It would be unfair for teenagers to be charged as adults when by law, they are considered the opposite. Juveniles should be held accountable for their actions and punished but definitely not as adults.

Teens Are Teens, Adults Are Adults

In Gail Garinger's article "Juveniles Don't Deserve Life Sentences", it is noted that teenagers are not as biologically equal to adults. There has been brain imaging studies that show that in a teenage brain,  regions that are used to control actions, thoughts, and emotions are not fully developed. From my perspective, if a teen is not equal mentally to an adult, why should be classified as an adult when it comes to charges. I think teens should not receive the same punishments adults receive because they aren't equal. An adult is developed and experienced enough to know what the difference is from right and wrong. Teens still have to go through that growing stage to fully understand the emotions they feel, and the choices they make. So to classify a teen as an adult when it comes to jail sentences is totally unfair. Also, if a teen is treated as an adult when it comes to jail sentences, then they should be classified as adults period. Why should teenagers have to go through the same punishment an adult goes through, if they are not treated like adults in the outside world? If that is the case, teens should be able to do everything an adult could do and not be punished for it. I mean, if teens are getting adult benefits when it comes to jail sentences, they should be receiving adult punishments period, right?

Marjie Lundstorm explains in the article "Kids Are Kids-Until They Commit Crimes" that there has been numerous accounts of teenagers who commit horrendous crimes. While investigating the cause of these crimes, a lot of the answers seem to be similar. Many of these young adults commit a crime because they seen it on TV, and wonder how it would be in real life. This just proves many of the crimes these people are committing are because they do not have the mental capability to figure out whether they are doing something right or wrong. They are not fully developed yet to know the difference between right and wrong. 

Kids, and teenagers are treated as kids to the outside world. These people are the same people who need permission from their parents/guardians to make choices for them. How does it seem that these people are looked at, and are treated differently, but when crime comes into the question they are looked at and treated as adults. If teens are receiving punishments that adults are receiving, they should be receiving benefits adults are receiving in the outside world. Just as Marjie Lundstorm stated, if this is the case, allow teens to vote. Allow teens to do things on their own, and allow these teenagers to be looked at as adults. If that is not the case, teens should not be given sentences an adult is given.

If Juveniles Are Being Treated As Adults in the Courtroom, Shouldn't They Be Treated As Such Outside of It?

In "Kids Are Kids-Until They Commit Crimes",  Marjie Lundstrom criticizes the public belief that children are just children until they commit a crime and, in which case, the perspective changes and they are immediately viewed as adults. It's crazy to think that in society, anybody under eighteen years of age lives under very strict rules. They are not able to "drink, smoke, or go to R movies". They can't even vote, largely because the country questions their judgment. Yet in the courtroom, the expansively heeded belief collapses. It makes one wonder: should children and adolescents be treated as adults outside the courtroom as well, or should they be prosecuted with consideration to their age?

Paul Thompson, an assistant professor of neurology at UCLA, believes that "the legal system should not treat them as [adults]." He and his research group have done a study regarding the growth and development of the brain. They found that a "massive loss of tissue...occurs in the teenage years."

What's even more startling is that the loss is exclusive to the frontal lobe, the region of the brain "which inhibits our violent passions, rash actions and regulates our emotions." Not only does this suggest a highly probable explanation for juvenile crimes considering the research was done at UCLA, a highly regarded university, it also establishes just how far from being a fully developed and completely mature adult a teenager is.

If society chooses to treat adolescents as adults outside of the court, kids the age of thirteen should be able to vote. They should also be able to smoke and expose themselves to whatever else the world has to offer. Taking into account the findings made by Thompson and his colleagues, this will result in catastrophe. But if instead, we offer to help and lead them to the right path as their brain develops, then maybe they'll become law-abiding citizens. What do you think? Should children be treated as adults outside of the courtroom? If so, why?

Teens Should Not be Sent to Rot in Jail

In the Paul Thompson's article "Startling Finds on Teenage Brains" it argues that teenagers are prone to be more impulsive due to a larger tissue loss during the adolescents years. Teen go through a development process where they begin to figure out how to make the fast and right decision. As teens we all make impulsive mistakes and learn from them, but most of them are minor and effects others minorly. Now some of the actions teens perform are on a major and more heinous which their actions need to be punished, but they do not deserve to be thrown into prison for the rest of their lives. Teens have the tendency to change their mentalities as they get older. It is not far to keep them locked up in prison for the rest of their life with no parole based on a terrible decision they made as a teenager.

In a report by Prisons Bureau in 2013 titled "Annual Determination of Average Cost of Incarceration" they state "The fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates in Fiscal Year 2011 was $28,893.40." Keeping these kids also cost money and jail space that they will occupy for the rest of their lives since they have no parole. Teens change their mentalities over the years and can change, but should still be accountable for their actions either through community service or other programs instead of just rotting in jail.

The Hope of Change

Juveniles should be punished and assume the consequences of their actions. If they are not giving a penalty they will believe their actions were not severe and will repeat them once again. Although I do concede that juveniles should be punished I extremely disagree that they should be sentenced to life in prison.

           

          According to Dr. Frances Jensen the teenage brain is not fully developed and is incapable of making the same choices as an adult. They are immature and impulsive leading them to commit heinous crimes. Jensen also states that

“The problem with the adolescent is that they may not have the insider judgment, because their frontal lobes aren't completely online yet, to know when to stop. To know when to say, ‘This is not a safe piece of information for me to look at. If I go and look at this atrocious violent video, it may stick with me for the rest of my life — this image — and this may not be a good thing to be carrying with me.’ They are unaware of when to gate themselves” (Jensen).

This quote supports that teenagers do not reason or think of the consequences before they commit an act.

            Juveniles are not perfect and will always commit mistakes. Sentencing these adolescents to life in prison is a huge error. Within the years they are giving in prison and the help and rehabilitation they receive, they will be able to realize their mistakes. They can\not take away juveniles the hope of change and be a new person 

Not All Juveniles Should Walk Free

In “Kid Are Kids-Until They Commit Crimes” by Marjie Lundstrom, Lundstrom states that “nearly every state has moved to make it easier to charge kids as adults-juvenile crime is way down.” I would like to know what caused the juvenile crime to go down. Could the fact that states have made it easier for kids to be charged as adults be a solution to the juvenile crime problem? According to Lundstrom, “the nation’s juvenile arrest rate for murder fell 68 percent from 1993 to 1999… Juvenile arrest rate for violent crime overall fell 36 percent from 1994 to 1999.” In my opinion people should look into the reason of why the juvenile crime rate declined and there may be the solution the juvenile crime problem. Maybe sentencing some juveniles to life in prison considering the crime committed would scare and prevent other juveniles from committing heinous crimes.
I don't believe that every juvenile who has committed a heinous crime should be able to walk free 20 years later. I would say that a lot of factors have to be considered before sentencing them to life in prison but keep it a option. For example if a teens goes into an elementary school and kills dozens of children by shooting them then the juvenile should get sentenced to life in prison. Walking free in 40 years for that crime isn’t enough for crime committed and the problems that the juvenile has created to families and friends. However If a teen were to murder someone or people by accident or by their emotions and inability to process what he/she is doing then the juvenile shouldn't be sentenced to life but should still be punished. Sentencing some teen to life in prison without parole considering their crime committed may make other juveniles think twice of their actions and it will show them that they won't be able to walk free later in life because they have an underdeveloped brain.
It’s true that teen have an underdeveloped brain and therefore shouldn't be tried as adults but everyone is different. Some teens mature faster than others for example a teen may be 17 years old but have the mind of 23 year old while other 17 year olds may still have the mind of a child. Not everyone teen is impulsive and immature and some know exactly what they are doing and what would be the consequences. Therefore I say that many factors have to be taken in before letting a juvenile who murdered dozens of children walk free 20-40 years later but not all juveniles who committed heinous crimes should go to prison to life without parole.

Juveniles don't deserve life in prison.

In the article "kids are kids- until they commit crimes" by Marjie Lundstrom. It talks about how kids will always be kids till they turn the age 18. Many people see teenagers as immature, and it's not that there immature it's just they got many years to go so they can experience what life is. As the author states " it's a glaring inconsistency that's getting more glaring by the hour as children as young as twelve and thirteen are being charged as adults in Americas courts." It's crazy how judges can really sentence a juvenile as an adult when there just kids? However, I do agree that they should be punished and get sentenced but the juvenile system should have rules that they should follow. It has been proven that teenagers lose a massive of brain tissues as it states in the article "Startling finds on teenage brains" by Paul Thompson saying " what really caught our eye was a massive loss of brain tissue that occurs in the teenage years." At the same time, I ask myself if people know this and it's proven why do we treat teenagers as adults? Teenagers don't act the same way as adults they act without thinking. The courts can change teenagers lives by giving them a second chance. However I don't say don't punish them but i think the juvenile system should punish teenagers the correct way not as an adult because there still teenagers. The legal age for every teenager is once they turn 18, if after that age they commit a crime , the juvenile system has every right to treat them as an adult.

In the article "On Punishment and Teen Killers" by Jennifer Jenkins states that teenagers should be punished harsher for their crimes. "If brain development were the reason, then teens would kill at roughly the same rates all over the world. They do not. Advocates often repeat, but truly misunderstand brain research on this issue. The actual science does not, according to experts such as Professor Stephen Morse, and others, in any way negate criminal culpability." She doesn't take any of the research based on the development of the teenage brain into further consideration, instead she uses a hostile tone throughout the entire article.  She states that the death penalty has been abolished yet teen criminal are living the good life even behind bars. The author is very biased toward teenage criminals because a teenager murdered her youngest sister and her husband. Her sister was pregnant and begged for the life of her first unborn child. I can relate to her perspective because she wants justice for her murdered loved ones, but it wouldn't be fair to punish a child harshly either. She also mentions that their should be a reform that will benefit the victims. One thing she didn't provide proof for was when she said, "the offender advocates have also promoted another horrible lie." What horrible lie? The author has no proof whatsoever to backup what she said.

On Punishment and Teen Killers

In the Jennifer Jenkins's article, "On Punishment and Teen Killers", she argues that brain development is not the reason why teens commit violent crimes. She is also against advocates that are against juvenile life without parole or JLWOP. I completely disagree with Jenkins's stance on the JLWOP issue. Her experiences with her sister's murder have led her to write a biased article against juvenile offenders. I believe that she did not even think about the families and juveniles that are affected with JLWOP. While reading the article, I developed few questions for the author: What would you feel if your child committed murder? Would you have a different point of view towards JLWOP? I believe that juveniles should not be tried as an adult and given life sentences. Teens who commit such crimes should instead be sentenced to a few years in juvenile detention centers to allow them to think about what they have done and to possibly learn from their mistakes. This way, they can have a second chance in life, instead of wasting their lives behind four walls.

 I do not think it was right for Jenkins to disprove scientific research about the connection of brain development and juvenile crimes. I believe that underdeveloped brains is the leading cause of juvenile delinquency. They are unable to make decisions efficiently causing them to make wrong decisions. Teens should not be penalized harshly just because they made the wrong decision when they were 13 or 14 years old. Teens this young still have plenty to learn about life and whats wrong or right. They should be given a second chance in life. 

Jenkins made it seem that teens will never learn from their mistakes and will commit similar crimes in the future. That is not always the case.For example, Gail Garanger, a former juvenile court judge, stated that young offenders grow out of crime. Many teens and even young children learn from their mistakes. Once they know what is wrong and right, they would most likely not commit the same mistake again.

Juveniles Don't Deserve Life Sentences"

In the article, "Juveniles Don't Deserve Life Sentences," written by Gail Garinger, He stated that juveniles shouldn't be responsible or punished for any crime that they commit. This topic is a great topic that was discussed but the answer that I believe is the right answer is that these kids need to get a life-lesson and deserve to get punished. They will only do the offense again if there is no serious consequence in the first one. Kids will commit so many offenses if they know that they won't be punished by the law. Parents can only do so much for their kids for punishment but if they went to a correctional hall, then that will most likely change their ways. Now, i'm not discussing kids ten and younger but eleven and older know what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of the law and also morally right and wrong, so they should be punished for their actions. In the eyes of parents, they will say that "kids are being kids" yet they will stay kids with this kind of attitude. The parents will baby their kids so much that they will fight for them to not punish their kid in the eyes of the law. The judge and the jury should see beyond that because no matter what the parent says and no matter the age of eleven and older, a criminal offense is a criminal offence and it can't go unnoticed and, definitely, unpunished.

Juveniles Don't Deserve Life Sentence

In the article, "Juveniles Don't Deserve Life Sentence" by Gail Garinger he explains several points that prove that adolescents should not get the sentence to life in prison. Approximately seventy nine young adolescents have been sentenced to die in prison nationwide. These teenagers should not be judged by their crime instantly because their is always three sides to a story that the public needs to listen to which are the victim's point of view, the teens' point of view, and the truth of the whole situation. I believe that all humans should be punished for their crimes no matter the age, but the court system needs to take into consideration the age and who they are as a person. For examples, if a psychopathic teen murders several people then I believe that it is necessary to give them the life to prison sentence.
Deciding on whether or not to make the life sentence applicable to minors all depends on the specific situation. Garinger states in the article that young people are biologically different than adults meaning that their minds are not fully developed to be trialed in court as an adult. Everybody makes mistakes and it is not fair that in some cases the judges do not take the child's life into consideration.  These teens can change their lives completely if the court system gives them a second chance and gives them a minor punishment so they can learn their lesson from the whole situation.

Juveniles should be sentenced!

According to the article, "Juveniles Don't Deserve Life Sentences," written by Gail Garinger, claims how teens do not deserve to be punished for their crimes. I disagree with Garinger argument on how teens should have a second chance to prove themselves that they have changed. If I ever committed a crime, no matter how much I would hate to serve my life in prison, I will take the consequences. Those who do not receive the appropriate punishment, they will most likely commit another crime. Another thing that they can do is to experience house arrest. House arrest can be a much better punishment for a adolescent. This can give them an idea of how prison will be like, and also having a parole officer keeping an eye on them. However, teenagers should not be going around the streets knowing that they have broken a law, without learning their lesson and understand that it should never happen again. I believe that a teenage brain, thirteen to eighteen years old, can be mature enough to know what's right from wrong. If a teenager is involved in drugs and other types of medication that leads to brain damage, this can be used as evidence this child needs help and must be punished from their mistakes. Therefore, juveniles should not make an excuse that they were not aware that they have broken a law. Overall, I strongly believe that it is a judge job to decide what has to be done when a teen is sent to court. 

Homeless BHS Alumni graduates from CSU

Hello Class:
This is a powerful public interest story. One of BHS's own alumni graduates from CSU even though he is homeless. It shows what one can do with enough motivation, determination, and drive.
http://www.presstelegram.com/social-affairs/20141214/cal-state-long-beach-student-graduates-despite-homelessness-other-obstacles