The Cost of Culpability: The Significance of Numbers Inside the Criminal Justice System (Age and Economics)

During In re Winship (1970), it was determined that juveniles, just like adults, are entitled to “beyond a reasonable doubt” during the adjudication process. It was also decided that “preponderance of evidence” was not enough to gain a conviction when it came to juveniles being charged with criminal offenses an adult could commit. Both In re Winship (1970) and In re Gault (1967) were designed to

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.

In this paper, I will be discussing both the juvenile and the adult justice systems. There are several differences between the two systems, which may surprise you. I will be discussing many aspects within the justice systems. These include Terminology, Due Process rights, the process of Arrest to Corrections, Juvenile crime compared to Adult crime, age limits and waivers for the adult system and the different community correctional options, which are available to the offenders. The two systems share many of the same terms but not all terms are shared by both systems. In summary, the juvenile justice system and the adult justice system, vary in many ways and are alike in many ways.

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

“In the late 1980s, Robert Sampson and John Laub stumbled across the files from a decades-old research project conducted by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck of the Harvard Law School. This study that followed young boys from childhood into early adulthood and led them to question previous criminological research practice and develop their age-graded theory. It has been said that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Therefore, it is no surprise that, when criminologists study adult offenders, they discover almost all of them committed crimes as an adolescent. However, it is not logical to assume that everyone who engages in crime as an adolescent will commit crimes as an adult. Moreover, if one continues this faulty line of reasoning

KENTUCKY, 492 U.S. 361 1989) The Court later ruled in Atkins v. Virginia (2002) that, “mentally retarded persons were exempt from the death penalty as well, a further sign of society’s changing standards.” (ATKINS v. VIRGINIA, 536 U.S. 320 2002) The decision in Atkins explained that due to their impairments, “it is highly unlikely that such offenders could ever deserve capital punishment.” (ATKINS v. VIRGINIA, 536 U.S. 320 2002) The reasoning in Atkins is applied to the Simmons decision. Kennedy argues that because individuals under 18 are categorically less culpable than the average criminal, they should not deserve the death penalty. Kennedy adds that there are three differences between juveniles under 18 and adult offenders. First, “juveniles often lack the maturity found in adults, a trait that is understandable among the young and adolescents are overrepresented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior.” (ROPER v. SIMMONS, (03-633) 543 U.S. 551 2005) The second difference is, “that they are more vulnerable to negative influences or outside pressures and this could lead to deviant behavior.” (ROPER v. SIMMONS, (03-633) 543 U.S. 551 2005) Lastly, Kennedy asserts that “the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as an adult and that personality traits in adolescents are transitory.” (ROPER v. SIMMONS, (03-633) 543 U.S. 551 2005)

This system was to differ from adult or criminal court in a number of ways. It was to focus on the child or adolescent as a person in need of assistance, not on the act that brought him or her before the court. Youths are treated differently for many reasons. First of all, a human brain is not fully developed until the age of 25. In early teenage years, the brain can communicate like an adult, form and discuss complicated ideas, use language in increasingly complex ways, and will often perceive several levels of communication. While teens’ brains are developed in many areas, the frontal lobe is the last place to develop. The frontal lobe controls judgement and self-control, and is not fully developed until a person’s mid-20s. This is the reason for encouraged rehabilitation. The teen brain still has time to be influenced into making better decisions. Teens whose cases stay in juvenile court are treated differently than their counterparts who enter the adult justice system, based on the recognition that the adolescent brain is different from the adult brain and that kids might lack the intellectual or moral capacity to understand the consequences of their actions, experts say. For example, while adult cases can drag on for years, juvenile court proceedings tend to move more quickly in

The Australian criminal justice system acknowledges the immaturity of young offenders compared with that of adult offenders, and thus impose system in which their crimes are dealt with. A criminal conviction relies upon a two-fold basis whereby the actus rea and mens rea must be proved, however young offenders are treated with a different level of responsibility as they have not reached adulthood. Referred to as juvenile justice, offenders under the age of 18 are recognised as requiring a greater level of protection and assistance due to their state of dependancy. Such programs are specifically geared to protect young offenders and aim to deal with youth in a more effective manner due to their increased vulnerable state.This protection is consistent throughout the criminal trial process and covers all stages starting from acknowledging the age of responsibility.

According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “was the crime committed” to “why did the child commit the crime”, “how can we help the child”. When performing as it is designed and up to the initial intentions, the juvenile court balances rehabilitation (treatment) of the offender with suitable sanctions when necessary such as incarceration. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. In this paper I am going to discuss the three primary mechanisms of waiver to adult court: judicial waiver

JUVENILE TRANSFER TO ADULT COURTS A Look at the Prototypes for Dangerousness, Sophistication-Maturity, and Amenability to Treatment Through A Legal Lens http://psycnet.apa.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/journals/law/8/4/373.html

Many have argued that competency to stand trial is the “most significant mental health inquiry pursued in the system of criminal law” (Cowden & Mckee). This pillar of the American Legal System assures that those accused of criminal acts must be sufficiently competent to understand and partake in the trial proceedings. The threshold of competence can differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but it mainly hinges on a series of factors such as cognitive deficits, the presence of a mental illness, and an inability to comprehend or effectively communicate with legal counsel. While this standard was made legal precedent in the 1960s it was only in regards to the adult criminal system; however, in past decades legal reform has allowed for youths to be tried and subjected to the same punishments as adult defendants (Schwartz & Grisso). This legal development brings about a very imperative issue: Should youth offenders be subjected to the same standard of competence as their adult counterparts? Furthermore, since these statutes were developed for determining competency in adults, can they properly recognize the uniqueness of the youth population?

As more minors are committing violent crimes, the question of whether they should be tried as adults has arisen. Children as young as 13 or 14 are committing violent crimes such as murder, rape, and armed robbery. Some of these children are being tried as adults while others are being tried as juveniles and receiving milder punishments. A juvenile offender may receive a few years in a juvenile detention facility and possibly probation following his release at age eighteen. An adult committing the same violent crime will receive a much harsher penalty, often years in jail, possibly a life sentence, with little or no chance of parole. The only difference between the two offenders is the age at which they committed the crime. Juveniles over

Juvenile justice has proved to be as imprudent as it is practical. Snyder and Sickmund (1999) found that as early as 1825, there was a significant push to establish a separate juvenile justice system focused on rehabilitation and treatment. The procedure continued to stay focused on the rehabilitation of a person, even though financial support and assets sustained to hold back its achievement. In reaction to rising juvenile crime rates in the 1980s’, more corrective laws were approved (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). In the 1990s, the United States legal system took further steps regarding transfer provisions that lowered the threshold at which juveniles could be tried in criminal court and sentenced to adult prison (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). Furthermore, laws were enacted that allowed prosecutors and judges more discretion in their sentencing options; and confidentiality standards, which made juvenile court proceedings and records more available to the public (Snyder and Sickmund 1999), were reduced.

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.

On the other hand, the advocates of the juvenile system believe that because children are not fully mentally or physically developed, they are not therefore accountable for their actions in the same way as adults (Ainsworth, 1995, p.932-933). Juvenile criminality for them is “youthful illness” brought about by external forces like environment or impoverished living conditions. Donna Bishop, an advocate of the juvenile justice system, encourages states to give these juveniles “room to reform.” She believes that a policy that is designed to discard youth in the middle of the transition to adulthood is uncharacteristic of a fair government (Bishop, 2000, p. 159). Supporters of this kind of reform program for juveniles are not amenable to the transfer to adult court