Essay on Adult Justice System vs. Juvenile Justice System

The juvenile justice system is a foundation in society that is granted certain powers and responsibilities. It faces several different tasks, among the most important is maintaining order and preserving constitutional rights. When a juvenile is arrested and charged with committing a crime there are many different factors that will come in to play during the course of his arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing, and rehabilitation process. This paper examines the Juvenile Justice System’s court process in the State of New Jersey and the State of California.

With the escalation of murders and rapes committed by minors as seen in recent years the people are looking for the right answer. Public concern over the effectiveness of the juvenile courts when dealing with these offenders has brought about change in the justice system. (Stolba, 2001). The courts now, are quicker to transfer a juveniles’ case to adult court than when the juvenile system was first formed. There stands a conflict of interests within the two court systems. Juvenile courts are to protect the rights of youths determined incapable of adult decisions. The primary concern is that the youth be rehabilitated and not become a repeat offender. Thus, protecting the child from incarceration with adult criminals and any possible future victims. The concerns of the adult court is to make sure the convicted offender pays for their crime and that the victim gets justice. Rehabilitation is not a primary concer of the adult justice system.

In this paper, I will be discussing both the juvenile and the adult justice systems. There are several differences between the two systems, which may surprise you. I will be discussing many aspects within the justice systems. These include Terminology, Due Process rights, the process of Arrest to Corrections, Juvenile crime compared to Adult crime, age limits and waivers for the adult system and the different community correctional options, which are available to the offenders. The two systems share many of the same terms but not all terms are shared by both systems. In summary, the juvenile justice system and the adult justice system, vary in many ways and are alike in many ways.

There is no question that if a person is involved in any type of crime they will at some time make their way through the justice system. However, when that person is an adolescent they will go through the juvenile justice system, as an adult would go through the adult justice system. Even though the crimes of each can be of the same manner or hold the same severity the punishment results can differ.

Today’s heated debate regarding the decision to try juveniles as adults has prompted individuals to construct opinionated and informational articles on the topic. The nation’s troubled youth are protected by groups that believe these offenders deserve rehabilitation and a chance to develop into a productive member of society. However, others believe that those committing certain heinous crimes should be tried as adults as a means to protect public safety, prevent second offenders, and “dispense justice in the form of punishment” (Aliprandini & Michael, 2016). Because these perspectives offer a reasonable and valid argument, juveniles responsible for major crimes

Juvenile Justice Reform “America’s criminal justice system isn’t known for rehabilitation. I’m not sure that, as a society, we are even interested in that concept anymore.” Although Steve Earle was speaking against the death penalty when he said this, his words apply to the juvenile justice system as well. The process of being incarcerated into this system is flawed, however the problems inside the detention will be the focus of this paper. Beginning with the trial itself, discrimination shows itself within minutes.

Juvenile delinquency has become a controversial issue within the Criminal Justice system. In the United States, juvenile delinquency refers to disruptive and criminal behavior committed by an individual under the age of 18. In many states, a minor at the age of 16 to 17 ½ can be tried as an adult. Once the individual reaches adulthood, the disruptive and criminal behavior is recognized as a crime. However, the criminal justice system has divided juvenile delinquency into two general types of categories that has brought upon controversial issues of inequality and corruption. Yet, putting young individuals in juvenile detentions facilities seems to open the door for them to commit more crimes in the future. Therefore, under certain circumstances juveniles should be tried as an adult.

America’s juvenile justice system has been around for ages and has had problems since its creation. The courts have failed to devise a way to help juveniles and keep them from even entering the justice system. More often than not, juveniles are forgotten and never dealt with until they reach the point where they are either going to be placed within the system or receive some sort of diversion or alternative. This is where the problem exists. There needs to be more communication between the different levels of the juvenile justice system. Particularly between the officers that may arrest these juveniles, the probation officers that deal with them, and of course the judge in the court system. The juvenile court is supposed to have provided due process protections along with care, treatment, and rehabilitation for juveniles while protecting society. Yet, there is still considerable doubt as to whether the juvenile justice network can meet these goals (Cox, Allen & Hanser, 2013).

The border between juvenile justice and criminal justice did not endure the juvenile court’s first century. By the 1980s, there was general disappointment with both the means and the ends of normal juvenile justice. As with every other social repair efforts, it is difficult to say whether frustration with juvenile justice was born of erroneous concept or of wretched execution. The administering accepted by justice policy, however, was unmistakable. Juvenile courts began to adopt the sentiment and standpoint of criminal courts. Many States redesigned their laws to curtail the confidentiality of juvenile court proceedings and juvenile court records. Most States increased the legal etiquette used in juvenile court and shifted the objective of the juvenile justice process away from individualized intervention. Instead, juvenile courts and juvenile justice agencies began to focus on public safety and criminal accountability. In addition, nearly All States enacted laws to toss more youths to criminal court where they could be tried and punished as adults. In the span of a single century the American justice system had favorably embraced and then largely abandoned the concept of using a alternative legal system for crimes committed by the young. No single concern in juvenile justice has captured the attention of the public or of policymakers like criminal court transfer. Conflicts over the transfer issue command the clearest and most candid dispute over the juvenile-criminal

Our current juvenile court system began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The ultimate goal of having a separate court system for juveniles is to rehabilitate young offenders rather than punish them. The court also hopes to deter young offenders from preforming further delinquent behavior. Unlike the adult court system, juveniles do not have the right to a public trial by jury. Instead, they undergo an adjudication hearing where the judge rules whether the juvenile is a delinquent. Since this separation, several studies have been conducted to weigh the benefits and costs; such as effectiveness, efficiency, and cost of resources, of having two court systems. Is the United States juvenile court appropriate or should it be abolished? Abolishing the juvenile court system would mean juveniles and adults would both undergo the same criminal justice system. Rothstein states in his research that juvenile courts are a cost-effective way to handle less serious offenses by children (as cited in Acker, Hendrix, and Hogan, and Kordzek, 2001, p. 200). On the other hand, Robert Dawson (1990) argues that there are not enough legal differences between juvenile and adult courts for there to be a need for a separation, concluding that overlap between both systems is so great that having a juvenile court is unnecessary. Supporting this argument, Barry Feld (1997) calls the two systems “duplicative” (p 69).

There is a controversy on whether or not minors under the age of 18 who have commited a crime should be charged and punished as adults. Many people think that in certain situations, juveniles should be tried as adults, not all the time. In court, there are five criteria that is used to determine the offender’s fate. The five criteria taken into account are the degree of the crime, previous delinquent history, previous rehabilitation, how long the delinquent has to be rehabilitated, and the seriousness of the crime. Serious crimes, also considered adult crimes, include murder, rape, torture, arson, and more. With all ideas and facts taken into account, juveniles convicted of serious crimes should be tried and punished as adults.

This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.

Juvenile justice is the area of criminal law applicable to persons not old enough to be held responsible for criminal acts (US Legal, 2015). Until the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 1967 in In re Gault. The juvenile court system did now have legal constitutional rights. During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s there were more serious crimes starting to happen, and this is where the traditional emphasis on rehabilitation began to fade away and the justice system began to move more in the direction of tougher punishments for youth (DJS, 2015). In Maryland and Pennsylvania some of the milestones that came about throughout the years were in 2004 Maryland’s inquired the “step down aftercare”. This was to provide rehabilitation for the youth that will be returning back to their communities. In 2010 Maryland required that all law enforcement officers who were assigned to school grounds required competency model training. And in Pennsylvania the juvenile justice system required that all juvenile defendants are to be represented by counsel and the juvenile judges are to state their

The Juvenile System has been around for a long time. The primary reason behind separating Juvenile from adult criminals is quite simple; the judicial system believes that the children are less culpable for their irresponsive behavior and they could easily be reformed as compared to adult offenders. The crucial role of the judicial system is to critically investigate, diagnose, and recommend treatments for the Juveniles rather than accrediting them. However, because of the increasing number of juvenile arrest for crimes committed by persons considered as a child, the attention that the given to a crime involving juveniles, the decreasing trust to the juvenile system itself and the lauder roar of the society for a safer place to live in,

Q’orianka Kilcher once said, “I think it’s important for us as a society to remember that the youth within juvenile justice systems are, most of the time, youths who simply haven’t have the right mentors and supporters around them – because of circumstances beyond their control.” People need to understand that young adults haven’t fully developed yet; therefore, they tend to make bad decisions. A juvenile is an individual who is under an age fixed by law, at which they would be charged as an adult for a criminal act. Putting juveniles in adult prisons is unexceptional, they are not prepared for what goes on in adult facilities. Judges shouldn’t try juvenile offenders as adults because adolescents are not mature enough, it can lead to depression, and there is a risk of death after being released; however, there is a greater risk of reoffending.