Our "Messed Up" Juvenile Law System

Studies suggest that there is a divide between the government and public response to juvenile incarceration. Bullis & Yovas (2005) state that support is given to correctional facilities to house juvenile offenders as a form of punishment (as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). Individuals who support this perspective are often more likely to support the construction of more prisons and stern penalties on crime based upon the presumptions that youthful offenders are aware of the consequences of their actions (Drakeford, 2002 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). On the other hand, opponents of this perspective believe that incarceration creates an opportunity to rehabilitate the offenders (Huffine, 2006 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 18). This perspective supports the purpose of juvenile detention centers as “preparatory in nature – that is, offering services focused on the development of skills needed to return successfully to mainstream

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.

Today 's concept of the juvenile justice system is relatively new due to significant modifications in policy overtime. The justice system has been trying to figure out effective ways to treat juvenile criminal offenders successfully for years. The justice system did not always have a special category for juveniles and their crime. Juveniles was once treated as adults when they committed crimes and were subjected to harsh punishments. "The juvenile court was the culmination of efforts of the positivist criminologists and Progressive activists. It was designed to address the individual needs of delinquent children, provide care and rehabilitation, and ensure that they could go on to live lawful, productive lives. The Illinois legislature

Originally thinking that juvenile courts were exactly the same as an adult court, only with a different title. It wasn't until going through the Juvenile Justice unit, in the street law textbook, that I realized my thoughts were completely false, for the most part. I learned that the justice system I thought to be true, was at one point true. Children were given the exact treatment as adults, until 1899. The first juvenile court was established as a response to reformers arguing that the cause of delinquent behavior was the fault of parents failing to teach their children proper morals and respect. I had no idea the reason for juvenile courts was because of upset people wanting a solution. It was also a surprise to me that youths can be given just as harsh punishments as adults are given, in the form of of juvenile waivers, statutory exclusion, and a direct file. Getting trialed in an adult court as a youth is reserved for those who are particularly violent in their crimes, and behavior. I learned there was much thought put into giving troubled youths the fairest legal support and trials, with the implication of the Gault Decision in 1966 giving juveniles the same rights as adults, and In Re Winship, meaning juveniles must be found delinquent beyond a reasonable doubt, the same as an adult. I agree with charging youths as adults, in some instances, for the safety of the public and themselves.

During the Progressive Era - a period of industrialization, capitalism, and stratification of the class system - reformers helped establish the juvenile justice system as a way to decrease the rising juvenile crimes while also maintaining the dignity of the ‘uncontaminated’ and therefore deserving youth (Platt, 1977; Peirce, 1869). However, in reality, the complicated nature of working with children and crime have left the juvenile justice system continue to struggle with clarifying and following through with its mission. As social workers, whose mission is to strive for social justice as well as pay “particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty” (NASW, 1996), it is critical that we look more closely at the reasoning behind why we are still unable to define and follow through with what social justice looks like for these youth 200 years later.

Many serious crimes are committed daily and some by juveniles under 18. When serious crimes are committed these juveniles get tried as adults and receive adult sentencings. Many people argue that such juveniles should not be tried as adults because they are just kids and are still developing. In my opinion, I agree that juveniles should not be tried as adults, however I also believe they should receive adult sentencings but to a lesser degree, because they are not yet fully developed, they have potential to change, and it is not fair that they are underage but are being tried as adults.

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.

Mistakes or murders? Children or criminals? Answering these questions requires much deliberation. Trying juveniles in adult court cases isn't orthodox. But such incidents are increasing in America. In 2014 two Wisconsin girls stabbed their classmate 19 times. The state found the twelve-year-olds guilty without considering psychological imbalances (Hanna, Jason). Natural instinct urges one to comply with the decision. However, certain circumstances change perspectives, but only when presented. Trying minors as adults isn't sensible and overlooks many conflicts. Juveniles aren't mentally developed, risk harm in jail, and don't receive adult rights.

Court systems are left with difficult decisions. A controversial decision courts are faced with today is whether or not juveniles are to be tried as adults. The increasing number of incarcerated children in adult jails raises questions as to why. Adolescents sentenced to prison are more likely to be abused, commit suicide, or reoffend, thus committing more serious offenses. The statutes requiring juveniles to enter adult prisons are inhumane and in-just. Nevertheless, sentencing children to adult prisons continues regularly today. When adolescents commit crimes, they should be tried as juveniles rather than adults.

Children being tried as adult’s unfortunately is not a new practice in the U.S. or one that is looked down upon. In the United States there are thousands of underage children that get tried in criminal court each year. Countless of studies show that trying children as adults does not benefit neither the child nor the society. This essay will show that trying a child as an adult is unconstitutional and violates the criminal law conduct. This essay will carful define the terms regarding children in the criminal justice system, to fully understand the situation.

At the end of the 19th Century, the U.S. made legal history when the world's first juvenile court opened in Chicago(Horwitz-Prisco). The court was founded on two basic principles. First, juveniles lacked the maturity to take responsibility for their actions the way adults could. Second, because their character was not yet fully developed, they could be rehabilitated more successfully than adult criminals. More than a century later, these principles remain the benchmarks of juvenile justice in the United States(Horowitz-Prisco).In recent years, however, a growing number of juvenile criminals are being tried as adults. In part this stems from public outrage against children who are committing violent crimes. Many young children in America are

For years may people have debated whether or not juveniles should be tried as adults for serious crimes. The juvenile justice system was established in the year 1899(Long). Laws were first created to handle small cases such as truancy, shoplifting, and vandalism (Estudillo). Since 1993, at least 43 states have passed laws making it easier for children to be tried as adults (Estudillo). Juveniles should be tried as adults because by the time they’re about 12 they know that murder is wrong, if they’re grown up enough to kill someone then they’re old enough for adult consequences, and a lot of kids see the juvenile justice system as a way to get away with 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

Millions of juveniles are processed through the juvenile court system, and the number has been growing for years. Judges and court officials have been looking for many ways to come up with alternatives to incarceration. There are several different alternatives to incarceration for juveniles currently that will be discussed. Incarceration has an impact on the society as well, even for those who have not been in trouble with the law before which is one of the reasons why alternatives have been evolved. Tensions between the established principals and the proposed methods determined the way in which early incarceration alternatives were introduced into legislation.

The study says that states chose to reconsider the minimum age for juveniles to be tried as adults because of their young defendants' capability. Studies show that the area of the brain we use to make decisions and understand right from wrong, the prefrontal cortex isn't fully formed until around the age of 23. Ultimately it's controversial that some of us don't fully have a conscience. And can be caused by individuals with a history of drug use, depression, or abuse from within their living environments. The Juveniles that know right from wrong, should be held responsible and face consequences when they violate the law and commit a crime. The question remains whether the way we respond to a juvenile ,who commits a serious crime should differ from how we respond when the same crime is committed by an adult. On a final note, I think a solution to helping prevent juvenile crimes would be changing the social environment in how juveniles live is a more effective way to reduce violence than punishing juvenile offenders in adult