【Native Speaker每日综合训练—41系列】【41-15】Juvenile Delinquency

油桃F

内容：ffffionabear 编辑：油桃F

Stay tuned to our latest post! Follow us here ---> http://weibo.com/u/3476904471

感谢ffffionabear的内容，好赞( •̀ ω •́ )
本期的主题是青少年犯罪，很有内容哦~
新人贴请多指教，enjoy~

Part I: Speaker

Why your worst deeds don't define you

Source: TED Talk
http://www.ted.com/talks/shaka_senghor_why_your_worst_deeds_don_t_define_you

[Rephrase 1, 12:18]

油桃F

Part II: Speed

6 facts about crime and the adolescent brain
BY Emily Kaiser | May 15, 2013

[Time 2]
The criminal justice system needs to rethink the way it manages teenagers who misbehave, according to Laurence Steinberg, an adolescent brain development expert at Temple University.

Because the adolescent brain is still developing, the risks taken and mistakes made by young offenders may be more outside of their control than we think, said Steinberg.

"No one is saying that kids who commit horrific crimes shouldn't be punished," Steinberg told the New York Times. "But most in the scientific community think that we know that since this person is likely to change, why not revisit this when he's an adult and see what he's like?"

Steinberg is in the Twin Cities to speak at the University of Minnesota at a lecturetitled "Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Legal Policy?"

Steinberg joined The Daily Circuit Thursday, Nov. 15 to discuss his research.

Here are six facts we gleaned from Steinberg's appearance on The Daily Circuit:

1. Adolescent brains have weak brakes

"One way to think about it is a kind of competition or balance between two different brain systems: A system that impels us to seek out rewards and go for novelty and excitement, sensation seeking, and then a brain system that really puts the brakes on impulses," Steinberg said.

"What we now understand about the adolescent brain is that both of these systems are changing during the course of adolescence. The reward seeking system is becoming more easily aroused, particularly during early adolescence, which makes kids seek and go after rewards. The braking system is still developing very, very slowly and it's not fully mature until people are well into their 20s."
[273 words]

[Time 3]
2. Adolescents take more risks in groups

In Steinberg's lab at Temple University, researchers put people through a driving simulation and monitor their brain activity with MRI. The game involves a number of risk-taking scenarios.

"When adolescents are playing the game without their friends watching them, they don't play it any differently than adults do," he said.

The game player's friends are then brought into a room to watch their friend, but they can't interact.

"Just knowing that your friends are watching you doubles the number of risks teenagers take," he said. "If we look at adults, it has no impact on their behavior whatsoever."

When friends are watching, the brain activity changes too.

"There was much greater activation of rewards centers in the brain when the adolescent was playing the game being watched by his friends," Steinberg said. "In adults, the brain activity looks exactly the same when they are playing alone versus playing with their friends watching them. It leads us to think that something is going on when teenagers are with their peers that makes them especially sensitive to reward."

3. The behavior-governing prefrontal cortex is morphing

"What happens during adolescence is that this part of the brain becomes a more efficient tool through changes in the anatomy of the prefrontal cortex, but also it becomes a better connected part of the brain in its ability to communicate with other brain regions," Steinberg said. "The period of time during which this is happening really extends from pre-adolescence all the way into the mid-20s."
[256 words]

[Time 4]
4. Adult guidance makes a difference

"If we're talking about a child who is at a stage of development where his own self-control is still immature and still developing, one thing that can help him is to have self-control imposed on him by other people," he said. "That's a role parents play that helps protect their youngsters from engaging in risky and reckless behavior."

5. Ninety percent of kids who break the law during adolescence don't become adult criminals

"A lot of the misbehavior that adolescents engage in is transient," he said. "It happens during adolescence partly as a function of the immaturity that is characteristic of the period and then it goes away without any intervention whatsoever."

6. Teen offenders are too often treated like adults when they hit the justice system

"It is not that unusual for our justice system to criminalize what I think most of us would consider to be, you know, stupid adolescent behavior," he said. "They come into contact with a system that just has stopped viewing them as what they are, which is kids. They are not adults. We need to go back to an earlier point in our history where we had a separate juvenile justice system that didn't have such a porous border with the adult system, which is what we have right now."
[223 words]

Source: MPR News
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/11/15/daily-circuit-juvenile-offenders-brain-development

Punishment for juvenile crime – should it be different?
BY  Paul Samakow | May 18, 2014

[Time 5]
Two teenagers shot and killed a college baseball player out for a jog in Oklahoma last August. They explained they committed the murder because they were just bored.

Juveniles who commit crimes have legal protections that include lighter sentencing than adults would receive in the same circumstances. Discussions continue about the appropriateness of that leniency each time a horrible crime is committed by a teen.

The Supreme Court has trended toward the more lenient position, and most recently, California’s high court ruled in the same direction.

In 2005, in the case of Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for those under 18 was cruel and unusual punishment and thus unconstitutional. Life in prison, without parole, thus became the most significant punishment a juvenile could suffer for committing any crime.

In 2012, the Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for juveniles also violated the 8th Amendment’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The thinking was simply that juveniles are different than adults. The Justices appreciated that a juvenile’s brain is not fully developed.

The ruling means, for juveniles, that a judge cannot simply look at the mandatory sentence for a given crime and impose it; rather, when sentencing, judges must look at and consider that a younger person is different than an adult.

“Youth have less responsibility for their actions than adults and greater prospects for reform,” the court concluded.

Reformers of juvenile sentencing say that a younger person’s brain is not fully developed. They are correct.

Peter A. Weir, a former judge and now a prosecutor in Colorado, offered a tougher view in the November 13, 2013 Denver Post. He said that some juvenile offenders commit crimes so serious and so heinous that public safety mandates — and justice demands — full accountability in our criminal justice system.

Weir counters the argument of those who say this is unfair and unjust: “reform experts tell us that three-quarters of adolescents lack the decision-making abilities of adults, thus one-quarter of juveniles can function in an adult manner.” Weir further notes that experts acknowledge that they cannot apply general concepts of a developing brain to the activities of any specific person.
[363 words]

[Time 6]
The Colorado case that led Weir to his comments involved a young man just shy of his eighteenth birthday. The young man hunted, kidnapped and killed a ten-year-old girl. Weir says the murder was thoughtful, deliberate and cunning in its planning and execution. The “juvenile” was sentenced to life in prison plus 86 years.

Last month, California’s Supreme Court overturned a longstanding punishment “presumption” that would impose life without parole for juveniles convicted of certain murders.

California’s court ruled that trial courts “must consider all relevant evidence bearing on the distinctive attributes of youth, including hallmark features of adolescence such as immaturity, impulsivity, and a failure to appreciate risks and consequences.”
The ruling forces judges to consider those factors before imposing the harshest of sentences on youth.

Elizabeth Calvin, a senior advocate for children’s rights at Human Rights Watch, said about the California ruling:

“The court has recognized today what every parent knows – kids are different and are capable of tremendous growth and transformation. Now, it is up to judges and state legislators to ensure that all child offenders have a meaningful chance to work toward rehabilitation, to periodically demonstrate their achievements, and, if merited, to earn their release from prison.”

Richard Bonnie of the University of Virginia School of Law and Elizabeth Scott of the Columbia Law School, in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, argue that “new scientific insights can and should guide legal decision making about teens as a group, but that it’s far too early to look for scientific assistance in individual judgments”.

“One problem is that law and science view human development quite differently.” As Bonnie and Scott note, “the law basically divides people into minors — vulnerable and incompetent–and adults, who are autonomous and responsible. But psychological science has a more nuanced view of adolescence as a separate stage, between childhood and adulthood.”

They say that this view “is supported by neuroscience, which shows that the frontal cortex — the seat of judgment, self-control, and sensible planning — matures very gradually into early adulthood. It is out of sync with the early development of the emotional brain, and as a result there is a gap between early sensation seeking and later self-discipline.”
[369 words]

[The Rest]
In 2012, a theory of the juvenile mind was offered from the world of psychological science, furthering the “there is a difference” theme. Jean-Louis van Gelder, of the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, argues that juveniles suffer from conspicuous shortsightedness. He says that young people appear overly focused on immediate rewards such as money, sex, stimulation, and that they have little regard for potential later consequences. Van Gelder says this seems obvious in a way, and that is why juveniles commit crimes and end up in jail.

Van Gelder asked “why?” and decided to test for the concept that juveniles suffer from a specific cognitive deficit, one that makes it very difficult for them to imagine their future selves. He ran multiple experiments. He concluded that “the vividness of the future self is the key to making prudent decisions in the here and now — and diminishing criminal propensity”.

Understanding criminal mentality is the subject of countless studies, books, and seemingly endless analysis by scientists, criminologists, psychologists, legal scholars and others concerned with decreasing crime. Whatever the reason for criminal behavior, it is clear that a blind punishment rule that cannot address individual circumstances and differences between a juvenile and an adult is inappropriate.

Parents catch their kids, ages 17 and 11, doing the same “bad” thing. Older kid gets punished harsher. There is a need to consider everything when punishing someone.

A juvenile criminal two months shy of age 18 should not necessarily be treated with lenience. Mr. Weir, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the California Supreme Court are all correct.
[323 words]

Source: Communities Digital News
http://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/punishment-for-juvenile-crime-should-it-be-different-17741/

油桃F

Part III: Obstacle

Adolescents in Adult Court: Does the Punishment Fit the Criminal?
By Peter Ash | J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 34:2:145-149 (June 2006)

[Paraphrase 7]
What should we do with an adolescent who has committed an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult?

“Lock ′em up.” That’s the view of my 17-year-old son, expressed over dinner as he’s about to embark on a spring vacation trip with his friends. To get permission to go, he’s been working hard to impress his mother and me with his good judgment and sense of responsibility. He thinks his judgment is as good as that of most adults, and he has a stake in proving it. If you start with the view that late adolescents think just as well as adults, then it makes sense to hold them criminally responsible as adults.

But I press on: “Treat them as though they were adults for everything? Shoplifting? Fleeing the police in a high speed chase and hurting someone in an accident?”
“No, those are just being stupid. It’s the difference between doing something stupid and doing something mean.” Another view of adolescents: they are more impulsive than adults, but they’re not more ignorant about good and evil. And that leads to a different view of what are appropriate interventions. How you think about adolescence has a great deal to do with what you think should be done with juvenile offenders.

Adult Crime, Adult Time

The concept of adolescence as a transitional phase of development between childhood and adulthood is a fairly modern invention. The first academic book on adolescence appeared in 1904, around the same time as the early juvenile courts. Prior to that, adolescent antisocial behavior was dealt with in the adult criminal system. The reformers saw delinquency as related to neglectful upbringing (which is part of why juvenile courts handle both child deprivation proceedings and delinquency) and wayward youth in need of guidance and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation was the ostensible objective of juvenile court interventions with delinquents, but over time the practice became increasingly punitive.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the adolescent crime rate soared. In 1993, for male African-American youth aged 15 to 19, homicide was not simply the leading cause of death; it accounted for more deaths than all other causes combined. Noted criminologists predicted—erroneously, as it turned out—that the crime rate would go higher yet. Concern for public safety and a worry that adolescent offenders would “get away with it” by aging out of the juvenile system led to more punitive approaches under the “adult crime, adult time” mantra. Since 1992, all states except Nebraska have expanded their provisions for transferring adolescents to adult court. Transfer laws utilize several mechanisms, including allowing prosecutorial discretion, lowering the age at which an adolescent is considered an adult from 18 to 17 or 16, and statutory exclusion (specifying age and offense combinations that are automatically sent to adult criminal court). The nature of the act, not the nature of the actor, became the basis for most transfers to criminal court.

Although such legislation focused on the criminal act, it was facilitated, and possibly driven, by a view of the actor. The media were full of reports along the lines of: “Youth shoots 14-year-old for jacket, then goes for ice cream.” The view of the offender as a troubled adolescent who deserves help was replaced by a view of the adolescent offender as a remorseless criminal or superpredator. Although many of the punitive legislative responses were based on an image of adolescent killers, the laws themselves were written more broadly, by lowering the age at which all crimes are tried in adult court to 17 or 16, or including a wider range of offenses, such as robbery, multiple burglaries, or aggravated child molestation (which might be defined as aggravated solely based on the age of the “victim,” even if the “perpetrator” is only a few years older). The problem is not that killers had been treated too leniently—most states already had laws allowing most adolescent murder defendants to be dealt with in criminal court—but that a large group of nonmurderous adolescents became viewed as hardened criminals.

Adolescent Culpability

Since the mission of the juvenile court has not focused on punishment, until relatively recently adolescent moral and criminal responsibility have received very little attention. In adult criminal courts, however, the proportionality of punishment to culpability is important. In 1988, Justice Stevens, writing for the majority in Thompson v. Oklahoma,16 in which the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on defendants who were below the age of 16 when they committed the offense, said:

Thus, the Court has already endorsed the proposition that less culpability should attach to a crime committed by a juvenile than to a comparable crime committed by an adult. The basis for this conclusion is too obvious to require extended explanation. Inexperience, less education, and less intelligence make the teenager less able to evaluate the consequences of his or her conduct while at the same time he or she is much more apt to be motivated by mere emotion or peer pressure than is an adult. The reasons why juveniles are not trusted with the privileges and responsibilities of an adult also explain why their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.

Notwithstanding that reduced culpability of juveniles was “obvious,” the following year in Stanford v. Kentucky the Court held that executing 16- and 17-year-olds was constitutionally permissible. The Stanford court reasoned that some youth over 15 could be fully responsible and that grounds other than culpability were also relevant in determining whether the death penalty for minors represents cruel and unusual punishment.

The argument about immaturity, as commonly utilized, holds that if the decision to commit a crime can be shown to derive from judgments that can be meaningfully distinguished from adult judgments, then adolescent culpability is reduced. And the reverse may also be argued: if adolescent capacity cannot be meaningfully distinguished from that of an adult, then differential blame is not warranted. Most studies of adolescent decision-making through the early 1990s found that cognitive decision-making of 15-year-olds on issues such as health care were not significantly different from the decision-making capacities of adults. Below age 15, capacity fell off fairly quickly: about half of 13- to 14-year-olds’ decision-making capacity was significantly worse than that of adults. Some studies, such as Grisso’s work on waiving Miranda rights,18 also took into account noncognitive factors, such as deference to authority, but found similar results. This research was utilized by the professions in arguing for increased legal recognition for autonomous rights for minors over age 14, most especially in the debate regarding whether an adolescent girl should be able to provide legal consent to obtain an abortion without involving her parents.

In the 1990s, a number of research efforts were begun to examine adolescent decision-making along dimensions other than cognitive capacities. Cauffman and Steinberg20 hypothesized that other aspects of thinking were relevant to decision-making, such as self-reliance, the ability to see short- and long-term consequences, the ability to take another person’s point of view into account, and impulse control. Utilizing a self-report, paper-and-pencil methodology, they found that psychosocial maturity was more positively correlated with making socially responsible choices and avoiding risky behavior than was age. The Supreme Court took note of reduced culpability in finding execution of minors unconstitutional last year,21 but there is little evidence that views of reduced culpability have played a major role in decreasing transfers of adolescents to the criminal courts.

Adolescence as Becoming

As parents, we have many hopes for our children. Essential in much of how parents respond to their children is the idea that teenagers are on their way to becoming something else. How to integrate this sense of becoming into our view of adolescence has not received careful analysis and is difficult to articulate. This is part of why adolescent culpability and deserved punishment are such difficult topics. Responsibility turns not only on the present capacity to control one’s actions and make sound judgments, but also on having had the opportunity to mature. As adolescents grow, they have an opportunity to reflect on their experiences, and, potentially, to break away from their environments. Consider two offenders, one an adult, and the other an adolescent, who have committed a similar crime and who have a similar sense of time perspective, intelligence, and other capacities that are taken to be elements of maturity of judgment. We should consider the adolescent as less responsible because he has not had the same amount of experience in making choices nor has he had the opportunity to reflect on his choices to the same extent as an adult. Knowing that an adolescent is still developing also contributes to the disquieting sense that an adolescent who is punished today is not the same person who will be sitting in prison five years from now.

Conclusion

Deciding what to do with youthful offenders involves weighing several factors: public safety, fair and just punishment, and fostering the development of productive and moral citizens. We see these goals through the lens of our ideas, often not clearly articulated, of what adolescent growing up is all about. The “adult crime, adult time” approach not only encompasses a distorted view of adolescence, it appears to be an ineffective strategy for furthering public safety or the well-being of adolescent offenders. There have been major advances in our understanding of adolescent offending, but with few exceptions, these understandings have not yet been translated into legislation. The question of appropriate punishment has been examined most thoroughly in the context of the death penalty for adolescents, which was prohibited last year. Extending the analysis to adult punishment for youthful offenders has yet to be done. The American Psychiatric Association has called for reform of current practices of transferring adolescent offenders to adult criminal courts. More empirical investigation and the further development of effective interventions will help to clarify these concerns, but advancing juvenile justice policy will also require careful analysis of just punishment for juvenile offenders and analysis of the tradeoffs between competing goals.
[1676 words]

Source: Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
http://www.jaapl.org/content/34/2/145.full

cyndichiang

Time2 1'36''
Time3 1'53''
Time4 1'11''
6 facts about adolescent criminals and their brains
weak brake in the brain
more risks in a group
the behavior-governing prefrontal cortex is morphing
parental supervision makes things different
90% children criminals won't be adult criminals
children and adults share the same justice system

Time5 2'18''
Time6 2'31''
Whether juvenile criminals shoud be treated differently raises various concerns .
Judges should take several factors into account  before imposing the harshest of sentences on youth
neuroscience shows evidence that brains of juveniles do immature

Obstacle: 8'12''
It is controversial that juvenile criminals are jedged under adult criminal system
arguments about reducing culpabilityn. 可责；有过失；有罪
Parents' influences
Conclusion: all related factors should be considered and investigations should be more empirical

psychoarya

time2+time2+time4 4:53

The criminal justice system should rethink the way it manages juvenile delinquency. the author lists six fact about adolescent brain.

the brake system in the adolescents’ brain does not fully develop.

the adolescents behave different when they are with friends.

the change of the prefrontal cortex extends from pre-adolescence to the mid-20s

adult guidance can make a difference

most kids who break the law during adolescence don’t become adult criminals

they are often treated like adult criminals. —state the topic point

time5+time6+the rest 7:28

teenagers who commit the same crime as an adult does will receive higher sentencing.

the reform process: from harsher on adolescents to treat them with leniency.

consider the brain development.

obstacle 10:15

various factors should be considered into the punishment.

the comparison between adolescents and adults.

the influences of parents.

cherry6891

41-15
time2
The criminal justice system rethink how to manage adolescence's criminal
The rewarding system could not develop well until 20 s
Time3
Adolescence takes more risk to get reward when they known their friends are watching them
Time4
Adolescence's self control is still immature and under development.
Most part of the kids who broke the law do not become a adult criminals.
It is time to have a juvenile justice system because the blunt boarder line between juvenile and adult justice system
Time5
The article starts with a adolescence murder case.   And then talk about the law revising about juvenile sentence during the recent year(no death penalty)
Time6
Obstacle
The first book referred to adolescent appeared in 18 century and the juvenile court focused more on punishment other than intervention
Court differs the criminals after people pay more attention on adolescent moral and criminal responsibility.
As a tenager grow ,they have opportunity to  reflect on their experience and break out with the bad habits. But for adult ,they have passed the chance.So the adolescent culpability and deserved punishment should be different

古月小破烂

time 2,3,4 4’52
    things about crime and adolescent brain, which is still developing and need more care. Adolescent need to be treated different from adult.

time5,6,the rest 6’36
     the punishment should be different with different cases or not.

obstacle 11’15
      should we treat adolescent everything same as adult
       adolescent crime and juvenile court historic development
     discuss about adolescent culpability and adult age-16,17 or 18
      parent influence
     conclusion about treat with youth

slave918

T2 1：57
since adolescent's brain change when they becomes adult, S contends that we should change the way that we punish adolescent.
reasons:
1. the brake part of adolescent's brain is waker than the reward-seeking part of adolescence's brain.
T3 1:36
2. when adolescent know their peers are watching their behaviors, their impuse to seek reward are irritated and they seek risks.
3. the behavior-governing cortex in the adolescent's brain changes much until their mid-20s.
T4 1:55
4. adolescent needs parents' protection and guide.
5. juvenile criminals don't becomes adult criminals.
6. we should not treat young criminals as adults. Thus, we need different justice system to treat adolescents and adults.
T5 3:14
young ofenders are sentenced differently since their brain are not fully mature.
However, Weir states that 1/4 of adolescent are mature.
T6 2:17
the adolescents are different from adults since their brain are not fully mature.

AgendaChen

2+3+4time
Steinberg explains that unlike adults, whose brains are mature, teenagers are more likely to take risks and make mistakes because their brains are still developing. And then the author describes six facts that he gleaned from Steinberg's appearance on The Daily Circuit, a campaign that Steinberg joined to discuss his research. In these facts, Steinberg tells us that they are two different systems of our brain. One imples us to seek out rewards and go for excitement and novelty, the other puts the braks on impulses. However, in adlescent brain, the reward seeking system is more easily aroused, but the braking system is developing very slowy. That's the basic reason for adolescent deliquency. And Steinberg also conducts an experiment to prove his conclusion.
6m12s. Therefore, Steinberg appeals that we should not use our adult justice system to judge teen offenders.
6m20s

5+6time
The author introduces the idea of the passage by discussing a adolescent case first-teenagers who commit crimes should be treated differently. The Supreme Court inclined to trend toward the more lenient position. However, Weir argues that not every teenage can be treated with lenience. He gives a case to futher illustrate his idea. Therefore, the court has to consider all relevant evidence bearings on the distinctive attributes of youth. Some people hope that scientic researchs can help the justice system to reform, but law and science view human development differently, making scientic research unhelpful. In the end, the author concludes that understanding criminal mentality is useful to judge adolescent deliquency, and a general punishment for all adolescent offenders is inappropriate.
6m58s

How should we do with an adolescent who has committed a crime? After asking the question, the author begins to introduces the history of how to judge a teenager who commits a crime. As the adolescent crime rate soared in the late 1980s and early 1990s, in order to keep public safe, many states expanded their provisions for transferring adolescents to adult court, indicating that adolescents who commit a crime have the same responsibility as adults do. However, things are changing. Many researches point out that unlike the brain's development of adults, the brain's development of adolescent is immature. Therefore, the adolescent culpability should be reduced. And for almost all parents, they have many hopes for their kids and believe that wihouth life experiences as many as adults have, the adolescents should not take the same responsibility when making mistakes. In the end, the author concludes that deciding what to do with youthful offenders involves weighing several factors,and thus the reform of juvenile justice policy need careful analysis. 13m49s

mozhiwanjia

油桃F 发表于 2014-9-14 23:00
Part III: Obstacle

掌管 6        00:06:33.88        00:22:01.00
掌管 5        00:05:01.44        00:15:27.12
掌管 4        00:03:23.55        00:10:25.67
掌管 3        00:03:01.10        00:07:02.12
掌管 2        00:02:10.89        00:04:01.01
掌管 1        00:01:50.12        00:01:50.12