The Pros And Cons Of Juvenile Criminals

75% of youth in correctional facilities for delinquency are not in for a serious violent felony crime (Ross). Many minors in such facilities are held because their families cannot take care of them. Drug use, often stemming from the parents, is prevalent in teens detained in juvenile detention. Additionally, teen pregnancy and sexual abuse are common among the incarcerated young adults. Most of them have some level of a psychiatric disorder, however, a small percentage of them actually receive treatment. An unhealthy home environment, drug addiction, and mental trauma all contribute to the cycle of juvenile detention. In fact, 66% of youth who have been arrested will become repeat offenders within 24 months (“21 Juvenile Repeat Offenders

In the United States of America today when a person has been committed of a crime they are trialed through a system to conclude if they are guilty as well as determine their best fit punishment of due to the crime. From what most people know when an adult is put through this process they have the right to a quick and speedy trial with a jury to determine if they are guilty and they are given their punishment. However, within our system the process of punishment and sentencing is significantly different if the defendant of the crime is under the age of 18, if they are under 18 they are legally considered a child and are not put through the same system and punishment with which adult are. They are but through what we call a juvenile court system.

The criminal justice system approaches young offenders through unique policies to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. They take special care when dealing with juveniles in order to stop them from repeat offending and stop any potential bad behaviour which could result in future. Juveniles have the highest tendency to rehabilitate and most adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature. There are several factors influencing juvenile crime including psychological and social pressures unique to juveniles, which may lead to an increase in juvenile’s risks of contact with the criminal justice system.

Transferring an adolescent offender to adult court is a tight decision. It has far-reaching implications for the adolescent involved and significant symbolic meaning for the justice system. For the adolescent, transferring to the adult system, it holds the possibility of harsher punishment (including physical, sexual, or psychological victimization by other inmates. Also the endurance of developmental costs (Chung, Little, and Steinberg, 2005; Mulvey and Schubert, 2012). For the system, transferring an adolescent to adult court is an unambiguous statement that the criminal justice system will no longer shelter the adolescent, by virtue of his or her acts, from harsh justice. Transfer to adult court indicates that the demand for proportional

With this message directed towards juveniles, as well as the likely chance that juveniles whom are transferred to the adult criminal court system will result in some type of incarceration, this may lead to a deterrence of violent or misbehaved actions committed by juveniles in an attempt to avoid these prosecutions. These statements conducted by Urbina and White (2009), are statements to consider on the issue of a juveniles transfer to adult criminal court. Although there are strong facts to support this type of transfer for juveniles, Urbina and White (2009) also found that this might not be the best option in some cases. There have been studies that showed juveniles whom were transferred to the adult criminal court system and sent to adult jails were more likely to re-offend and with more serious crimes than did their juvenile counterparts (Urbina & White, 2009). With this study that was conducted, it adds doubt to the fact that juveniles should be transferred to the adult criminal court system. Although, at times, this may be the best option for serious and violent repeated offenders, it is not likely that this process will have a positive affect on the juvenile or the community. Urbina and White (2009) continue to lack strong argumentative evidence to show the exact times that transferring a juvenile to the adult criminal court system is the

Juvenile’s incarceration is becoming enormous number. Taxpayers are financing the bill as detention centers and correctional facility become overcrowded. In the beginning of the 21st century, juveniles became out control and a get-tough policy became in effect. The court system knows they need some structure and punishment for the crimes they may have committed, and look for alternatives that can assist them in becoming a better person in society. In this assignment it will discussed the historical and economical alternatives to incarcerating for juveniles. In addition, what alternatives for correctional facility are currently in place? Finally, what significant value or punishment by not taking the juvenile from his home or their community

This paper is an attempt to understand and point out the flaws in the legal system that has of late in many cases begun to treat juveniles in the same footing as adult offenders. There is a raging controversy over this move that makes young offenders to be tried and incarcerated just as if the crime was done by an adult. The arguments over this have been made in the Supreme Court and the land mark judgement Roper Vs Simmons (1995). However it is submitted that simple observations of the post procedure effects on young persons have not been verified or recorded properly. If this system continues, would it not be against the logic of creating the juvenile justice system

The adult court system does not have the resources to work with and rehabilitate youth (Seep, 2015). According to recent studies, teens sent through the adult court system are 5 times more likely to commit another crime after leaving jail compared to a teen sent through the juvenile court system (Brown, 2015). This is because the juvenile court system has resources to help teens learn from their mistakes and not make them again. As a society, we should want our teens to become educated and help make our society better. While the goal of the adult court system is to deter the convicted prisoner from committing another crime, the juvenile court system’s goal is to rehabilitate the youth and help them successfully integrate back into society (Seep,

In America thousands of children have been sentenced as adults and transferred to adult prisons. Children as young as eight have been prosecuted as adults. Reports from the Equal Justice Initiative (2017), found that depending on the state, the minimum age can vary between 8 -16 years. Thirteen states in the United States have no minimum age for trying children as adults: Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia (EJI, 2017). According to Michon (2017), the factors that could cause a court to grant a waiver petition and transfer a juvenile case to adult court include:

The issue of juvenile transfer to criminal court is a very sensitive subject to every individual who care about the young ones in society, because it pertains to our youths who are considered to be “the future.” Many will ask if it is right for us to allow juveniles to be transferred to adult criminal court, and if so under what circumstances. Some believe that the best course of action regarding juvenile offenders is not transferring them to criminal court but rehabilitation – these individuals view punishment as a failed strategy for changing behavior, teaching skills, or developing new or more positive

Should juveniles get adult jail sentences? In today's society juvenile offenders are facing the law to full force, in two court systems. Not only are they tried in the juvenile justice system, but also charged as adults. The issue of charging juveniles as adults has stirred various views owing to the violent crimes committed by the young offenders. Politicians comment that the best solution is to lock up juvenile offenders for a long time and ignore rehabilitation. However, prior researches on the topic of juvenile delinquencies suggest that trying young offenders in the adult legal system and putting them in adult prisons will only lead to increased crime, higher costs, and increased violence(John & Jiangmin 568).

However, the transfer laws do not lower the juvenile crime rates. For example, in New York a law that sent violent juvenile offenders to criminal courts did not have an effect on violent juvenile crime. Serious crimes presented before the adult criminal court included murder, assault, burglary, rape and arson. In other cases, young offenders become aware of the consequences once tried in the adult courts. When committing the crimes, they think that they will receive light punishments imposed by juvenile courts but when referred to adult courts, the youth tend to become more responsible. Therefore, prior knowledge of resultant punishment plays role in crime reduction among the youths. Subjecting the young offenders to face adult courts brings to their attention the seriousness of the matter at hand (Jeff, page 8).

In recent decades, juvenile crime has become somewhat of a controversy due to the young age and immaturity of these criminals. Incidences of juvenile crime skyrocketed in the 1980s and 1990s, and policymakers pushed for laws that sent children as young as thirteen years old to trial, and even made them eligible for prison sentences. The general public has expressed a common desire to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime and find effective legislation to discipline these youths, but there are questions about these methods. What is more effective, incarceration or rehabilitation? Does criminal punishment intimidate more youths away from a life of crime, and would productive rehabilitation efforts influence these youths to becoming more valuable members of society?

In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the United States Supreme Court determined that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional to juvenile offenders. This decision is agreeable upon because adolescents do not receive the opportunity to reform themselves. As the Court suggests, life in prison violates the Eighth Amendment, which accounts for a ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, juveniles still must be held accountable for their actions and should be sentenced to a fair verdict according to their crime, whether they are an adult or not.

Youth crime and juvenile delinquency are very sensitive issues that are a concern in every society. The thought of criminalising people who are not even considered adults yet, and are not fully mature in cognitive development is a troubling issue. Yet, many societies are faced with the problem of young people committing crime. Many criminal justice systems around the world have schemes for juvenile delinquency and legal repercussions for the failure of young people to comply with the law.