Essay about Criminal Justice Process

In the United States of America today when a person has been committed of a crime they are trialed through a system to conclude if they are guilty as well as determine their best fit punishment of due to the crime. From what most people know when an adult is put through this process they have the right to a quick and speedy trial with a jury to determine if they are guilty and they are given their punishment. However, within our system the process of punishment and sentencing is significantly different if the defendant of the crime is under the age of 18, if they are under 18 they are legally considered a child and are not put through the same system and punishment with which adult are. They are but through what we call a juvenile court system.

There are many controversies that surround juveniles being rehabilitated rather than going through the adult justice system, but studies show that juveniles are not fully developed to be tried as an adult. One of the main questions that it always boils down to is “should juveniles be tried as adults?” in my opinion juveniles should not be tried as adults because of their age.

In today's society, there are many crimes going on. Adults are not the only ones that commit crimes. One issue today is that juvenile offenses and whether juvenile offenders should be tried as adults in criminal court. A common phrase that is often used in this case of young juveniles committing crimes is "Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time." This phrase should be cleared to people that juveniles are not adults, and with this being said it will not make them one. "It has redefined juvenile offenses by treating most of them as delinquent acts to be adjudicated within a separate juvenile justice system that is theoretically designed to recognize the special needs and immature status of young people and emphasize rehabilitation over punishment" (Steinberg). While juveniles should be responsible for their actions, and should be held accountable for the crime, then the juvenile justice system is design to determine the consequences. Youths are still minors and are less mature. They often face a lot of negative peer pressure. Therefore, juveniles should not be tried in courts as adults.

Jury duty is one of the many obligations subjected on the adults within the American population. It is our social contract to uphold the responsibility of making the unbiased decision of finding someone innocent or guilty. Yet, would your decision on the punishment be altered based on the defendant’s age. The truth of the matter is cases like these are very common and poises a difficult decision for any party involved. Is that evil that lurks within the child’s eyes or ignorance of the value of life? So many question come to mind, but the most prominent question is how accountable is minor for crimes even as heinous as murder? The issue of whether minors should be tried as adults is a groundbreaking issues that consist of many different

Constitutional guidelines: While the Constitution does not specifically mention crimes by juveniles, In re Gault (1967), via the Supreme Court allows for fairness to juveniles within the court system as they are given the same inalienable rights by God as everyone has and they have to

Diving into the actions of the various members of the criminal justice system will show how the actions of a few can affect countless people within the community. The convictions show the guilt of the person along with definitively

Juveniles are not necessarily given every right afforded to adult criminal defendants. Let’s take a look at the right to “a trial by jury”. Juveniles do not have the right to a jury trial instead a Judge decides the juvenile cases. (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971) Taking into account that this is a worst case scenario, a minor adjudicated in juvenile court can face being sentenced to the

Juveniles know right from wrong at that age and are old enough to know the consequences. At that age, juveniles know that touching others inappropriately without the person's permission is not acceptable and that weapons are not to be taken as a joke due to the harm that can be done. When having the right to a trial by jury and not just by a judge, this allows the juveniles to have the official fair trial. Which then it could lead to crime rates from teens to go down

The reliability of the juvenile court has been questioned by many states in that it may not actually have a true benefit. Although the juvenile court was founded under the principle that offenders are too underdeveloped to be tried and treated as a real criminal, the current judicial system of punishment is ineffective and insufficient in responding to

(Soulier & Scott, 2010) The main difference between juvenile courts and adult courts was that juvenile courts were civil and adult courts were criminal. And until 1967, youth did not have any constitutional legal rights. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in In re Gault changed that. The Supreme Court decided that even though they were civil cases, juveniles still could potentially have a loss of liberty. So because of that, all juvenile court cases where the offender could be imprisoned have the following rights; The right to have an appellate court review the lower court's decision, The right to confrontation and cross-examination, The privilege against self-incrimination, The right to receive notice of charges, The right to receive a transcript of the proceedings, and The right to obtain legal

I went to websites including Southern Poverty Law Center, 10 Pros and Cons of Juveniles Being Tried As Adults, University of Rochester Medical Center, and many more. When I went to these websites I found that many people think that youths should not be tried as adults. I found research proving that the brain is not fully developed until the age of twenty-five. I based my research on the fact that youths do not have fully developed thought processes, they do not understand the full weight of their actions and consequences, and they are capable of

There would be a constitutional issue because juvenile have certain constitutional rights at negotiation, such as the right to a lawyer and the right to challenge and interrogate witnesses, but they have no right to a trial by jury. The subject of juvenile’s rights is poorly defined in the courts, somewhat because the public as a whole has not decided how much independence to grant juvenile. When most juvenile’s supporters talk about juvenile’s rights, they are not stating to the same rights detained by adults, such as the rights to vote. Instead, they mean that more importance should be placed on juvenile’s standing as “regular persons” eligible of benefits under the law as providing in the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Most adults will imagine those kids being their own which gives the children some sort of leeway. Most juvenile courts do not have a jury, therefore making it hard for the juveniles who committed a crime not be given a proper trial, which in their case is good for them. But, if juveniles were to be tried as adults, not only could it bring justice, but it could also show other people who don’t believe they should have a trial by jury and keep it the

Juveniles also have rights that look out for their best interest. According to, Delinquency and Juvenile Justice in American Society, Sheldon provides the rights that juveniles are granted. “The supreme court ruled that when a judge considers whether to transfer a case from juvenile court to an adult court, a juvenile is entitled to a hearing and has the right to counsel. The court must provide a written statement giving the reasons for the waiver, and the defense counsel must be given access to all records and reports used in reaching the decision to waive. Often times juveniles rights are waived or broken due to lack of proper legal representation. (Sheldon, 2006)

To begin I learned a lot of new information in Unit nine. I have taken law classes before in high school but was never too familiar with the juvenile justice system. The first fact I learned was that a juvenile case never goes in front of a jury. The judge always hears the case and decides a ruling a punishment. I believe that is a good system. I enjoy the system because as Dr. McCarty pointed out a jury is supposed to be a group made of people who could be considered the suspects “peers.” In a juvenile case a jury of minors can’t be called in for obvious reasons such as a group of 13-year old’s can’t decide the legal fate of a suspect. The other point I drew from that is having a group of adults preside as a jury similar to an adult case can prove to be unfair. I thought this because adults can’t be considered a juvenile’s peers. A common thought I had was a 40-year-old adult may be basing their decision on their own history and things have changed drastically in the world since a 40-year-old was considered a juvenile. Having older jurors in my opinion would only create havoc for the defendant and most likely would harm them in an unnecessary way. I agree with the current system that for all juvenile cases a judge has to preside over the case as a judge has to be neutral and open minded throughout any trial. Even though a minor’s fate essentially comes down to one person’s decision it is the right system. There are far too many cons to bringing in juries for