Prior to 1899 in the United States, children who committed a criminal offense were tried and punished as adults. Children were being institutionalized with adult criminals where they were picking up negative influences preparing them for a life of crime. Progressive and social change demanded that children be protected and educated instead and therefore a separate court system for juveniles was subsequently established to address this problem. It has since being argued that juvenile courts have abandoned their role to rehabilitate juvenile delinquents and should be abolished. In an age where juvenile crime has escalated from simple truancy to more serious crimes such as mass school shootings some would agree it is time to abolish juvenile courts or modify the system at the very least. Because of the seriousness of juvenile crime in this day and age, most states have already lowered the age limit for juvenile court jurisdiction from 17 years and are prosecuting more children as adults depending of the seriousness of the crime. Some criminal justice and child welfare scholars argue that younger children do not have the mental capability or experience to weigh the consequence of committing a crime and much less understand the implications of a criminal record in their future. Furthermore, they note that most juveniles grow out of criminal behavior as they mature out of the system and in …show more content…
As members of a society we need to distinguish the differences between adolescent and adult behavior and keep those differences in mind when thinking about the implications of abolishing juvenile court has on society. Questions need to be answered such as are all adolescent considered to be as responsible and independent as adults are to be treated the same in a court system? As a society, are we ready to return to a court system similar to that of
There are indication that most criminals have a juvenile records in the US, indicating that crime manifests from a tender age. Therefore, to reverse the incidence of crime, it follows that the best strategy is to reduce the criminal orientation in the juvenile offenders as opposed to hardening them and preparing them for criminal careers. The case of the Crossroads Juvenile Center demonstrates the willingness of the juvenile justice systems to make these changes on the children. References Day, S. (2014). Runaway Man: A Journey Back to Hope.
Roper v. Simmons is considered a landmark case and is one of a handful that shows a new direction in granting some relief from what has been established as harsh “adult” punishments for juveniles (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). In fact, many studies are showing that the differences between adults and juveniles are quite significant (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The courts are realizing that these differences must be taking into account when dealing with juveniles in the criminal justice system (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). However, that being said, change does not occur overnight, and for the unforeseeable future, juveniles will still continue to be waived into adult courts (Elrod & Ryder, 2014).
The federal government’s “War on Crime” by the Johnson administration in the 60s made way for tougher law enforcement and surveillance (Hinton, 2015). However, with this came the separation of children and adults in the criminal justice system; then the separation of juvenile delinquents from status offenders. As mentioned, status offenders are different from juvenile delinquents because they had broken rules which apply to only children. Meanwhile, juvenile delinquents are youths under the age of 18, who committed offenses that would be punishable to adults as well. By the late 1960s, there became a growing concern that juveniles involved in the court-based status-offense system, were not getting their best interests met (Shubik & Kendall, 2007).
The Juvenile system was first established around 1899 during the Progressives Era Reforms. The progressive era reform was the first system to actually try to reform juveniles due to the fact that they were being trialed as adults. Psychologist made developments with research on the psyche of the juveniles being trialed as adults not beneficial to the state of mind that some minors can’t comprehend at the adult level. The findings from the research that were conducted, made society change their views on the juvenile delinquency.
Our society relies on millions of our citizens to become robust citizens both mentally and psychologically. While teenagers are expected to be obedient, they often commit acts which if they were adults would result in a felony. While these mistakes are inevitable, I feel abandoning the concept of delinquency but maintaining a system to address offenders is best. Considering the pros and cons from this point of view, it appears clear that abandoning the concept of delinquency among children rather than relying on traditional methods appears to be the most effective method which requires the most
I believe the development of juvenile justice to have had a creditable change because of the cases included, re Gault 1967, Kent v. United States 1966 and Schall v. Martin 1984. Gerald Gault age 15 already on probation for stealing and his friend Ronald Lewis was taken in to custody on June 8,1964, after Allegedly making a prank phone call. When Gault was taken into custody his parents weren’t contacted, and not even a notice was left at home. Gault was never given the chance to contact a lawyer, along with his parents not even knowing that he was taken to the juvenile detention center. According to (Margot Adler, 2007, para.
A big debate about the Justice System is the topic of juveniles and if they deserve to be tried and punished as an adult or as a juvenile. Due to many minors being tried as adults due to crimes they have committed, many states like California have the law where minors can’t be tried as adults until they reach the age range of 14-17 years old. This law is called the Juvenile Justice Initiative and was enforced as a solution to keep juveniles out of Juvenile Hall and to protect minors under 14 from getting tried as adults. Even though it solved many problems, it also created problems of its own, like how violent juveniles are not getting the punishment that they deserve and how it is harder for minors to be rightfully prosecuted for major offenses like murder. A better solution to this law is to consider the severity of the
Annotated bibliography Childress, S. (2016, June 2). More States Consider Raising the Age for Juvenile Crime. Retrieved from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/more-states-consider-raising-the-age-for-juvenile-crime/ More states are considering to raising the age for juvenile crimes before being tried as adult because young offender's mental capacity. The idea is to cut the cost of incarcerate young offender in adult prison and ensure offenders to receive proper education and specialized care to change their behavior. Putting children in adult prison does not deter crime.
When it comes to addressing whether juveniles should be tried as adults based on the seriousness of the crimes they committed, society has been in a state of utter chaos for generations. Juveniles should not be tried in adult court since doing so won't offer a long-term solution for their crimes and will only keep them caught up in a system they can't escape. Not that the severity of their crimes should be ignored, but many environmental circumstances, many of which are beyond the control of the average adolescent contribute to the progression of their crimes. Juveniles' minds can be seriously impacted by traumatic experiences, a less-than-ideal upbringing, and harsh punishments, which implies that we should offer them a source of rehabilitation
Roughly 115 years ago, in Cook County, Illinois, the first juvenile court was established. As of 2011, there were a total of over one million juvenile cases in the U.S. Before juvenile courts were established, all juveniles, despite their age, were tried as adults, meaning that they received the same trial and sentencing that any other adult would. Prior to the new court system, cases regarding minors, were very relaxed and unprofessional. This proposed many problems with in the justice system, which is what caused the establishment of the first juvenile court. With the juvenile crime rate plummeting, the question of whether or not juvenile courts should be continued, comes up.
Imagine being a child imprisoned for committing a crime for which you did not understand the consequences. Alone and afraid, with only hardened criminals and psychopaths as adult role models, you live in fear. Through a vicious combination of physical, sexual, emotional, and mental abuse, there is no option but to turn back to crime as an adult, and continue the cycle. This is a daily reality for thousands of American juveniles. Yet, we continue to call it the juvenile justice system.
Many people complain about how juveniles lack brain development and this should be an excuse. It makes others uncertain about trying them as adults since they lack decision-making and impulse control. Despite the lack of development, it’s ideal to recognize that for certain violent crimes, “there have to be consequences to actions” (Ford). Allowing juveniles to simply avoid adult punishment doesn’t help to promote public safety or give adolescents the responsibility they need in the future. But most people believe that juveniles still have room for rehabilitation and change.
There are differences between a juvenile court and criminal court in the United States. The focus of the juvenile justice system is on rehabilitation, in hope of deterring the minor away from a life of crime so they will not commit a crime again as an adult. In contrast, the criminal justice system focuses on the punishment and often bases the sentencing outcome on the criminal history of the youth. In a study conducted, Butler (2011) showed that the participants’ experience with adult jails and prisons show that those facilities may instill fear but are otherwise emotionally—and often physically—dangerous for youth. Many of the adult prisoners, who were minors when they enter the adult institution, felt they were forced to “grow
Within the urban communities, negative perceptions are magnified. Adolescents are more prone to be a product of their environment, especially those whose parents are incarcerated. Because of this trend adolescents are being incarcerated at an alarming rate and sentenced to adult facilities. Lambie & Randall (2013) states, the United States have imposed harsher penalties on serious young offenders, and have consequently increased rates of incarcerated youth and made it easier for youth to be treated and incarcerated as adults within the justice
Can you imagine waking up behind closed walls and bars? Waking up to see your inmate who is a 45-year-old bank robber and you are a 14-year-old minor who made a big mistake. This is why minors who have committed crimes should not be treated the same as adults. Some reasons are because the consequences given to minors in adult court would impact a minor’s life in a negative way. If a minor is tried through a juvenile court, they have a greater chance of rehabilitation.