The Issue Of Juvenile Crime

Over 1/3 of the 11,000 index crime arrests were juveniles under the age of 16.

There have been many studies conducted that examine ways in which the juvenile justice system responds to female offenders. Historically juvenile female offenders have been treated under status offense jurisdiction (Zahn et al., 2010, p. 10). United States Courts would exercise the principle of “parens patriae” to place the female in detention as a form of punishment for misbehavior (Sherman, 2012, pp. 1589-1590). This principle also remains prevalent as it pertains to how the juvenile justice system currently responds to juvenile female offenders.

There is much debate over whether or not juveniles should ever be tried as adults. Juveniles are defined as children under the age of 18. In the past, juveniles have been tried in a separate juvenile court because of their age. However, trying juveniles as adults for violent crimes is a trend that is on the rise. Age is supposed to be a deterrent for placing those under 18 on trial and giving them stiffer punishments that are often reserved for adults. Many debate whether or not juveniles really should have less severe punishments or if trying some juveniles as adults will lower juvenile crime rates.

Skip Hollandsworth candidly explores the subjects of juvenile crime and sentencing in the electronic long form newspaper article, “The Prisoner”. The purpose of the essay is to inform the reader about juvenile sentencing and to persuade the audience that there are clear problems with aspects of the U.S. prison system. The article is easily accessible to a large audience because it is online. Hollandsworth takes into account that his audience, mostly consisting of Texas Monthly readers, may already have pre-established notions about the topic, so he considers other sides while still supporting his argument. Edwin Debrow, a preteen member of the Crips, committed a murder when he was 12-years old and received a 27-year sentence through the

Throughout this essay, I am going to be looking at the topic of youth offending. I will be looking at what factors can be used as the predictors for youth offending and in particular I will be researching into how important social and cultural factors as predictors of youth offending. In order to do this, I will be looking at different sociologists theories as far as young offending is concerned and what evidence there is to support these theories. I will then conclude by discussing whether I believe social and cultural factors are important in determining youth offending.

These individual rights must be effectively balanced against these present and emerging community concerns: Widespread drug abuse among youth The threat of juvenile crime Urban gang violence High-technology, computer, and Internet crime (cybercrime) Terrorism and narcoterrorism Occupational and whitecollar crime

Minors are a diverse group that varies in terms of the severity of criminal acts they commit, the frequency with which they commit criminal acts, how early they begin their criminal career, and how long they commit these crimes for. For many minors, juvenile lawlessness is a short-lived flirtation that disappears as quickly as it emerges. It is common and even normal for minors to engage in trivial forms of misbehavior and delinquency as they mature through adolescence and enter adulthood. However, for some minors, juvenile lawlessness has a more troubling meaning.

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.

Juveniles committing crimes is not a new issued being introduced to society; actually, it has been an issue for centuries. However, the big question is, should juveniles be tried in adult courts? Before answering, take into consideration every possible scenario that could have led them to commit the crime. For instance, were they the leader in the act? Did they participate in the crime? Was the juvenile even aware of what was taking place? Were they peer pressured? Did they have any other choice at the time? There are so many other questions we could consider when making a decision here.

Youth crime is the crime committed by juvenile offenders. It is the common issue in Australia. The age group between 14-19 years old is the popular group of youth crime. (News 2013) Different age groups commit different types of crimes. (The youth court 2009) Also, there are many kinds of crime and crime method in the society, such as, drug offences, robbery, burglary, assault and violent offenses. The group of people who crime together that is called criminal group. It is a prevalence crime method and it is effective for crime. This question will focus on what is youth crime, the change of youth crime in recent year and the relationship between drug offences and the youth crime in Australia.

Over the past several decades more adolescences are being arrested and prosecuted. Not only are more children being put the juvenile justice system younger and younger children are being tried as adults. In more recent years thousand of adolescences are being placed in adult court systems and sentencing them to longer and harsher punishments. Although crime has gone down significantly in America the number of juvenile offenders has increased greatly. Many people in our society today believe that children who commit violent crimes should be tried in the adult court system even though they are under the age of eighteen. Although these children committed crimes such as an adult, this does not mean they are adults and should be sentenced as one.

While youth are in the juvenile justice system, they are viewed and treated as being less responsible than adults. Most general commentators perceive that there is a separate justice system for minors not only so the young offenders can be rehabilitated, but also for the reason minors do not deserve to be punished as severely as adults (Greenwald, 1983). However commentators

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

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.

It may seem shocking that America has one of the highest crime rates per capita compared to other similar industrialized nations. Over the years, there have been many discussions and efforts in order to reduce this problem. Perhaps one of the more sensitive issues when discussing crime in America is the problem of juvenile crime. Recently, juveniles make up 3% of all felonies committed each year and 6% of all violent crimes (criminamerica.net). These statistics have troubled politicians for decades as they have worked to find a solution. Starting in 1994 the Clinton administration started putting stricter punishment on juvenile offenders, but it was quickly realized that this harsh punishment may not be the best solution. Various studies and programs put into action have shown that early prevention in a child’s life is much more effective and more cost efficient in reducing crime. Because of these efforts, juvenile crime has reduced 68% since the violent boom of the 1990s. In light of these discoveries, it is important for states to focus on these results in order to reduce crime.