Juveniles Should Never Be Charged As Adults

Whether juveniles should be tried as adults in the justice system or not, has been an ongoing debate for many people. There has been many cases throughout time where people under the age of 18 have been tried as adults in the justice system. Information about this debate can be found in articles, novels, and podcasts. Typically people who are under the age of 18 are identified as a juvenile delinquent and go through different procedures after committing a crime. There is many examples and evidence of why juveniles should not be tried as adults. A juvenile is typically considered a person who is under 18 years of age.

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.

The Juvenile Justice System was established in 1899 when the first documented court hearing took place in Cook County, Illinois. This type of court system was designed to discipline, treat, and rehabilitate children under the legal age of eighteen, who are caught and/or convicted of committing crimes against society. Since its creation, many have argued for and against having two separate but parallel court systems. This essay will discuss the basic arguments in favor of and in opposition to the retention of the juvenile justice system.

As a contrast, there are many differences between the adult and juvenile justice system. These differences consist of the right to a jury, the right to post bail, leniency of evidence, different court proceedings, the right to a public trial, and rehabilitation efforts. As for the purpose of this paper, we will dissect the differences of the two systems. Many appeals have been filed under the notion that a right to a jury should be upheld for juvenile offenders. The courts have voted against this action time and time again. These appeals are made on the assumption that, as noted earlier, adult crimes should be tried as adult crimes. However, the court rules on this matter while keeping the rehabilitation efforts of the juvenile courts in mind, as opposed to the more punitive measures. Their desire to see kids treated as kids are defined with their upholding of the law, and pushing rehabilitation to its max. But should rehabilitation be the prime focus when the act is of adult capacity; even in a child’s body? I do not think so. What are the percentages of rehabilitation success with adults for committed capital offenses? How are they going to differ when a child partakes in them? I think there is a

Between 1990 and 2010 the number of juveniles in adult jails went up by nearly 230%. Now about a tenth of confined young people are in an adult prison or jail. Minors shouldn’t be charged as adults, but it does make a little sense.

In conclusion, juveniles tried as adults is unjust. Juveniles should not be tried as adults for several reasons -- because considering young people as adults alters the legal process, because there is a difference of legal standards in adult and juvenile courts, because the brains of young people are not fully mature until their mid and late twenties, and because adult courts do not offer rehabilitative programs

The juvenile justice system is very similar to that of an adult justice system. Young criminals go through the same process an adult criminal would go through, including: arrest, detainment, petitions, hearings, probation and reentry. Many states have different standards as to when a person is considered to be an adult, bringing lots of controversy. As fourteen states do not even have a minimum age a child could be tried as an adult. Why is it that children are not capable of understanding life until the age of eighteen and cannot make decisions for themselves, but once a crime is committed the child surely knew what they were doing and could be tried as an adult? If under the age of sixteen children should not be tried as adults, as many times children do not understand the consequences of their actions.

Juveniles should not be tried as adults because it is proven that children are incapable of making a rational, mature decision on their own. Adolescents have a shorter experience in the world, their brains are still developing, they do not have the same responsibilities or rights as adults and they are easily influenced at this age. Let 's say a child around the age of twelve is playing with two other friends at his house. His mother and father both work constantly so these children are alone. They are snooping around in his dad 's room and find a gun. Not being old enough to understand or realize it 's not a good idea they begin to play with it. One of the children pulls the trigger not considering what could happen. He accidentally shoots on of the other children and he was instantly killed. They decide to call 911 and before they arrive the child that accidentally shot the other tells his friend to tell them that it was his fault because hed get in trouble by his mom. The boy agrees and tells the police it was his fault and he is sent to adult prison for the maximum sentence. Children are both easily influenced and not as intelligent compared to an adult. These children are so immature and underdeveloped they should not and cannot make rational decisions on their own.

If we do not try juveniles in adult court for serious crimes, what is the alternative? We need to have a building just for juveniles tried as adults. If juveniles who commit serious crimes do not get tried in adult court they won't completely understand the consequences of their actions. Juveniles should be punished like adults are for serious crimes.

The juvenile system was developed in the United States about two hundred years ago, with the first court build in Illinois in 1899. Juvenile Justice System was established to reform youth were found guilty of a minor crime. Today, crimes of violence increase even more due to the cause on most cases youth are not interested in obtaining an education and decide to skip school and decide to steal and replace school with violent crimes, such as harassment, reckless endangerment, and burglary. The American Juvenile Justice System is main objective is to work with youth offenders who had been arrested and convicted of a crime.

“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

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).

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.

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,

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.