The same stimulus that animates men to action will have a proportionate effect on juvenile minds. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who committed murder could not be sentenced to mandatory life in prison because it violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Those who disagree with the ruling argue that that the mandatory sentences reflect the will of American society that heinous crimes committed by juveniles should always be punished with a sentence to life in prison. Though the majority of justices argued to abolish mandatory life in prison for juveniles, there are few who argue to retain it. In order to reduce violent juvenile crime, states should continue to sentence mandatory life in prison. Thus juvenile defendants should be treated more like adults.
             Supporters of abolishing mandatory life in prison for juveniles, who argue that the juvenile justice is sentencing children to die in prison, are incorrect because the nation is not sentencing juveniles to die in prison. These misleading headlines, exposed to the public's eye, are complete propaganda. According to the Supreme Court, "juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders." Gail Garinger, state of Massachusetts child advocate and author of "Juveniles Don't Deserve Life Sentences," claims that adolescents "are less mature, more vulnerable to peer pressure, cannot escape from dangerous environments, and their characters are still in formation." Though she may be correct in pointing out the reasons why young adults may commit such heinous crimes, Garinger fails to recognize that these juveniles do have morals. They should know the difference between right and wrong. Yes, we all make mistakes, but we all know better.
             Some research groups at the University of California, Los Angeles and the National Institute of Health have developed technology to map patterns of br...