Juvenile Justice Research Paper

1800 Words8 Pages
Between the 1980s and the 1990s, legislatures in nearly in every state expanded transfer laws that allowed or required the prosecution of juveniles in adult criminal courts. In the start of 2004 the American Juvenile Justice system had been reshaped in part by a trio of The Supreme Court decisions. Prior to the Progressive Era, child offenders over the age of seven were imprisoned with a adults. Such had been the model historically. Not the actions of political and social reformers, as well as the research of psychologist in the 18th and 19th centuries, began a shift in society’s views on juveniles delinquents. Early reformers, who were interested in rehabilitating rather than punishing children, built the New York House of Refuge in 1824.…show more content…
Myers. Talks about how it would be if we decided to sentence juveniles as adults: “sending youthful offenders to adult facilities increases the probability of re-offending since impressionable youths may be further corrupted through interactions with more experienced criminals.” (Free Online Library.).

Another book Rethinking Juvenile Justice by Elizabeth S. Scott. Explains to us the importance of the juvenile justice system “The subject of juvenile justice breeds extreme responses. The academic sensibility is extremely lenient, seeing misguided kids who need understanding and help more than punishment”. ("Robot Check”).
(COUNTERARGUMENT) Opponents argue that juveniles should not be tried as adults because they still have the mentality of a kid and are not mature. There have been studies done by Dr. David Fassler, a psychiatry professor of the University Of Vermont College Of Medicine about juveniles making impulsive decisions. David Fassler has stated before legislative committees on brain development, that research does not forgive juveniles actions but offers some explanation for their
…show more content…
The article states that parents should not be blamed and punished for their children’s crimes as the decision to commit the crime is made entirely by the children and does not involve the parents. Before the committing of the crime, a child has the choice as to whether he or she should commit the crime. If the child commits the crime, it shows that the child has chosen to commit the crime. Even if there was external influence, the eventual choice lies with the child. As such, the parents should not be blamed and punished for their child’s decision. Some might then counter that such an argument would work only if the child is mature enough to make sound and sane decisions. However, if that is the case, then it would have to be determined what age a child must be to be deemed sensible, which, as earlier shown, varies across the world. Since different people may have different ideas about this notion of age of maturity, it would not be easy to come up with a universally agreed definition of what is sensible when deciding whether a child is mature enough to make his or her own decisions. At this juncture, before this can be determined. The article mentions that, “I still feel that the child’s choice is entirely made by the child and the parents should not be blamed and punished on behalf of the child due to a vague notion of guilt by
Open Document