Hirschi's Control Theory: Article Analysis

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.

Juvenile courts have become more and more like adult justice system (more of a call for punitive punishment)

The juvenile justice system was fashioned in the late 1800s; restructuring policies in the United States concerning adolescent offenders was a part of a progressive era in are history. Thereafter, many modifications designed at both safeguarding the "due process of law" rights of adolescence, and generating an antipathy to jail amongst minor. This dislike has made juvenile justice system more equivalent to the adult structure, a significant change from what it was intended for in the

Nowadays, the topic of the Juvenile law system is a very controversial as well as difficult discussion to have. For every court case, trial, and scenario, there are many different circumstances that may affect the outcome. Due to the seriousness of their crimes or even their past offenses, juvenile criminals can sometimes be tried as adults. Personally, in the beginning of this assignment, I could see both sides of the argument. There are many reasons why children under the age of 18 should be tried as children, however, there are more proficient reasons as to why we should do away with juvenile court. Many of my peers do not think this, however, they are keen on keeping children tried as children. I truly cannot fathom the “good” that

Today’s juvenile court system handles most cases involving those under the age of 18-year-old. This was not always the case and the ideal of a separate court system for adults and children is only about 100 years old. When looking at the differences that set juvenile courts apart, it is important to study the history and see how it developed over time.

Individuals with strong and stable attachments to others within society, such as family, friends and community institutions are presumed to be less likely to violate social norms, because such behaviour would distress these respective attachments (Reginald et al, 1995). Second, is commitment, meaning having an individual investment in social activities. For example, an individual who has invested time, energy and resources into conforming to social norms, such as educational and career goals, is less likely to become involved in a gang (Goodwill 2009). In particular, since they have invested heavily in conforming these individuals have more to lose than those who have not invested in their future in a conforming fashion. (Reginald et al, 1995). Third, is involvement, which Hirschi utilized in order to illustrate that when large amounts of structured time are invested in socially approved activities, such as sports or work, the time for available deviance is drastically reduced (Reginald et al, 1995). Specifically, active engagement in conventional endeavors acts as a powerful protective factor against delinquency (Huebner and Betts, 2002). Hirschi’s final element of social bonding is belief. This pertains to an actor’s level of belief in the moral validity of shared social values and norms (Reginald et al, 1995). When an individual strongly believes in the conventional norms they are less likely to deviate from

Did you know, that in the United States alone, Over 200,000 children are charged and imprisoned every year as adults? Early in the 20th century, most states established juvenile courts to rehabilitate and not just punish youthful offenders. The system was designed for children to have a second chance at their lives. “A separate juvenile-justice system, which sought to rehabilitate and not just punish children, was part of a movement by progressives to create a legally defined adolescence through the passage of child-labor and compulsory education laws and the creation of parks and open spaces.”(How to reduce crime Pg 1) Although the view on juveniles committing brutal crimes is nearly inconceivable, it is not a solution to give juveniles adult consequences because the effects of the adult system on juveniles are not effective.

In these cases, we saw even though they are minors that if the courts wanted to hold juveniles accountable for their crimes as they would adults then guidelines had to be set to ensure the violation of juvenile liberties are not continued. We can see the cases that set the precedent for changes in the juvenile justice system for example, the graph below:

“The juvenile justice system was first created in the late 1800s to reform United States policies on how to handle youth offenders. Since that time, a number of reforms - aimed at both protecting the "due process of law" rights of youth, and creating an aversion toward jail among the young - have made the juvenile justice system more comparable to the adult system, which is a shift from the United States’ original intent (2008,Lawyer Shop.com).” The

NCSL, 2018, www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx: Onelia, Mary. “Juveniles Should Be Tried as Adults in Certain Circumstances.” Gale, 2008, ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010327214&source=Bookmark&u=dove10524&jsid=74542a3edc6f6527f03cc30ad9e4603e. Juvenile Justice & the Adolescent Brain.” Center for Law, Brain and Behavior, 24 Mar. 2015,

In the early nineteenth century juveniles were treated the same as adults when it came to the legal system. We did not have separate courts or jails for juveniles and they would often receive the same punishments as adults that had committed crimes. “At the beginning of the

Imagine sitting in a courtroom, hoping the the judge will not give a harsh sentence. Unfortunately, that’s the case for many juveniles, some as young as 13! A juvenile is subject to a more severe sentence with the limited sentencing available. It is estimated that 250,000 youth are prosecuted as adults, each year. This number should change, as juveniles are not adults, both mentally and physically. Juveniles need an environment surrounded with guiding adults, education and the resources to help them. A juvenile is not an adult, and should not be tried as one.

A system put in place to deal with Juveniles has been around for over 100 years. During the 18th century offenders were placed in two categories, an infant or an adult. Infants were not "babies" as we refer to those under the age of one, but more so, those who were not about to fully understand the act in which they have committed. Children under the age of seven were as the law stated unable to be guilty of a felony; whereas, children over the age of fourteen were held to the full extent of the law and were eligible for the death penalty. The ages in between seven and fourteen were considered a gray area. If the child in question was found to have full knowledge of their actions he/she could be held to the same consequences as those of adult offenders.

Evolution of Juvenile Justice System Throughout history, children as young as 7 years old accused of wrongdoing went to prison with adults. However, the course of events took a different turn in 1824 when New York house of refuge opened to house the juvenile delinquents. The refuge house charter defined juveniles as “youths convicted of criminal offences or found in vagrancy” (Hess, Orthmann, & Wright, 2012).

In my own opinion, I consider juveniles as immature because they lack the ability to recognize the long term impact of their actions as they have decreased levels of responsibility. Therefore, the justice system should not charge juveniles in adult legal system and sentence them as adults.Trying juveniles as adults exposes the young offenders to state penitentiaries up to life in prison without parole and even sentenced to death. This raises a question on how truly effective treating juveniles as adults are to the young offenders. As the crimes committed by juveniles increase, there has been an outcry from the public and affected to prosecute juveniles accused of serious crimes as adults. It is true that juveniles do