Juvenile Delinquents Be Tried By Juveniles

No matter their age, when it comes to serious offenses juveniles should be tried as adults because the understanding of what is right and wrong is known by young children, if they have the ability to commit a crime they should be charged as adults, and without them being trying

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

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

Approximately two million adolescents a year are arrested and out of that two million, 60,000 of them are incarcerated according to the American Journal of Public Health. The 60,000 incarcerated adolescents each year are being tried as adults in court because of the serious crimes they have committed. The crimes they have committed are anything from armed robbery to murder. Some juveniles might be first time offenders and others might be repeat offenders. Crimes have always been a major issue in the United States and can cause controversy in the criminal justice system. Charging a minor as an adult in criminal court varies from state to state based on each state’s jurisdiction. Some states consider anyone up to the age of 18 still a juvenile and would not be charged as an adult in criminal court, but other states may charge a juvenile as an adult at the age of 16 or 17. Jordan (2014) states, “Although states already had methods for transferring youth to the adult system, as a result of the growing fear of juvenile violence, most states implemented new laws to increase the number of youth entering the adult criminal system’ (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Torbet et al., 1996)” (p. 315). While it sounds beneficial to incarcerate more adolescents in the adult criminal justice system to avoid juveniles from committing crimes in the future, that is not always the case. Incarcerating these juveniles can be life changing in a negative

Some juvenile delinquents are being treated like adults and being sent to adult prisons instead of juvenile prisons. In an article called “ADULT PRISONS: No Place for Kids,” by Steven J. Smith, Smith presents an argument against treating juveniles like adults. His argument states that minors shouldn’t be trialed and placed into adult prisons because instead of being rehabilitated, they typically come out worse because of the daily exposure to already hardened criminals. Smith provides reasons why juveniles are convicted as adults, the drawbacks of placing adolescents in prisons with adults, and an alternative punishment for juvenile criminals.

The New York State Legislators did the right thing and increased the age of criminal responsibility to eighteen-years-old. New York State will not automatically prosecute sixteen and seventeen-year-olds as adults anymore. Annually, nearly 28,000 sixteen and seventeen-year-olds face the possibility of criminal prosecution as an adult (Raise the age.com, n.d.). Now Adolescents don’t have to worry about adult prosecution in the criminal system. Sixteen and Seventeen-year-olds will have the opportunity to call their parents if they get arrested. Sixteen and

Age should not be a factor that distinguishes punishment for the criminals. Sentencing juveniles to life in prison after committing a murder is only morally correct. I will not even refer to the sentence as “ adult sentence” because if it really came down to morals and justice for the people there would have never been a distinction between adult sentencing and juvenile sentencing. The justice system should be equitable for all people who commit a crime on US soil.

In the United States, New York State is one of two states that automatically prosecutes 16-year-old adolescents as adults. If arrested as an adolescent, New York State detains 16-year-olds in jail with adults while awaiting trial (Governor.ny.gov, 2015). In New York City, incarcerated adolescents reside on Rikers Island with adult criminals. This injustice compromises youthful offender’s safety and mental health. New York State must change the legislation to raise the age of criminal responsibility. Prosecuting and sentencing adolescents like adults must end.

Tennessee, like many other states, has provisions, provided for in the state laws, for the transfer of juvenile offenders to the adult courts for trial. The youth court has to follow the procedures, which are outlined in the statute, to include the minimum age of a juvenile, who is to be transferred to the adult courts, and the specific crimes for which such a transfer may take place. While I recognize, as the United States Supreme Court did in Roper v. Simmons, (2005), that children are immature, and easily led astray, there are times when the protection of the community mandates that certain juveniles be treated as adults. This should be done on a case by case basis, and only for the most heinous and violent crimes.

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.

If a juvenile, over fourteen has the ability and willingness to commit a violent crime they should be tried and punished as an adult. A fourteen year old knows right from wrong. He (or she) is able to tell whether they are committing a crime. If a juvenile is mature enough to commit an adult crime, they should be treated as an adult, and punished justly according to the adult law. The difference in age in two people should not determine their punishment if they have committed the same crime under the same or similar pretenses.

On April 10, 2017, as part of FY 2018 Budget, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed legislation raising the age for criminal accountability. New York state was one of the states that no matter what the offense was it still processed anyone in the age of sixteen and seventeen as adults in the criminal justice system. Although the legislation raised the age for criminal responsibility, protestors still think that it hasn’t done much for the teenagers who have committed a criminal act. The bill states that sixteen and or seventeen-years-old who have committed a felony crime will still be tried in court as an adult, and those who have committed misdemeanor crime will not be tried in court as an adult. Such bill will highly impact society, the criminal

Every process has room for improvement, but the juvenile justice system can be altered by adding in possible solutions of what can be done to help this problem in American society. About 100 years ago, juveniles were always tried as adults. Now, that the government has altered the system for the better, the government knows that trying juveniles as adults is not always justified. It depends on the crime, but the majority of the time, juveniles are often always tried as juveniles, based solely on their age. Not only that has changed; the process of juvenile justice has changed as well to better help the juveniles in the system. The rights of juveniles in the system have changed so that the children can improve their lives once they are out of the system. Even though the process has changed and the rights have improved for the juveniles, there are still many improvements to be made. Studies show that recidivism rates are in fact going down, but the rate can always be better so that juveniles do not return to a life of crime.

The nation’s first juvenile court was established in 1899 as a part of the Juvenile Court Act. It was founded on three principles: juveniles are not ready to be held accountable for their actions, are not yet fully developed, and can rehabilitate easier than adults. In all but three states, anyone charged with committing a criminal act before his or her eighteenth birthday is considered a juvenile offender. Now more than ever, states and countries have begun to question the reliability of the juvenile court. Some believe the juvenile court system should be abolished because of its insufficient gain to the community. Others believe children are not fully capable to understand the degree of their actions and the consequences that come from them and believe that juvenile courts are a necessity in the court system.

The juvenile justice system was founded on the belief that children are different from adults; therefore, the justice system and corrections sanctions for juveniles should acknowledge the differences. “Rising juvenile crime rates during the 1970s and 1980s spurred state legislatures across the country to exclude or transfer a significant share of offenders under the age of eighteen to the jurisdiction of the criminal court” (Fagan, 2008). The acknowledgement of these differences should be the bases for a proper juvenile justice system. The examination of the juvenile justice’s systems history, trends, and causation theories will provide an insight into the future of the juvenile justice system.