: Persuasive Paper Part 3: Possible Disadvantages, Answers, with Visuals - Admission/Application Essay Example

Part3: Possible disadvantages, answers, with Visuals Introduction The issue of prosecuting, with the aim of correcting minor offenders that is persons regarded as being children and not adults, has always resulted in dilemmas within the U.S. criminal justice system. The dilemma arises in the question as to whether they should face their entire court processes within, or outside the same systems as the adult offenders’ courts. The aim of the criminal justice system is to correct, not necessarily through punishment or oppression, but to reinstate the “sanity” of the young offenders.

It is therefore for this reason that this paper supports that setting aside a juvenile court system, set completely apart from the adult court, and is necessary in correcting minors. The negative thing about prosecuting minors under the same roof with adult offenders is that the young people might not stand the adult setting which they would regard as “scary”, “harsh”, or “too strict”, and from this, they might give in to the wrong information or admit to charges even if they were innocent just to escape the uncomfortable situations that the adult court settings might subject them to.

This can be better put that in the event that a minor committed a felony unknowingly, they might not stand the pressure, but may be forced to admit to the charges without defending themselves.The subjection of minors to an adult court process or setting is a breach of common human ethics, and translates to a flaw in the criminal justice system. The reason for this is that in being minors, children are prone to commit crimes which they had no idea that they were illegal, and that is a fact that the prosecution should consider.

Weighing a child and an adult using the same scales is unacceptable especially when it comes to administering punishment (Bohm & Walker, 2006). This means that the criminal justice system should come up with means of finding out what led the minor to commit a crime, and from it, the proper correction can be administered. Some felonies are committed out of not knowing, or ignorance, and minors can be excused for that. The case of 16 year old Mark Walberg should support the above suggestion. This was a clear depiction of a reasonable criminal justice process.

Upon his pleading guilty of assaulting the two Vietnamese, he was awarded two years at a correctional facility. He did not however have to endure the entire jail period because in 45 day’s time, it was discovered that young Walberg had realized how wrong he was in committing the act, and had resolved to be a better person. He was released after 45 days. The idea is that had this been an adult, then the entire two-year period should have applied. But since this was a minor’s case, and maybe he was unaware of the consequences, setting him free after he realized his mistake was good enough (Singer, 2012).

The other applicable answer to this problem should the separate hearings fail, would be making it mandatory for minor offenders to be represented in court by adults who should have spent sufficient time prior to the court sessions. This would work to ensure that they get all the reasoning leading to the committing of the said crimes, and this would provide deeper understanding of the cause and case before the adult settings in court push the minors into fear, thus denying them justice.Conclusion This text provides several reasons why there should be two different settings when it comes to prosecuting minor and adult offenders.

As the evidence states, minors can be excused for ignorance since they lack the maturity to make solid decisions as compared to adults; meaning thy are prone to make more errors as compared to adults. In addition, it has been proven that adult court settings can scare children out of their defense, and what results thereafter is denial of justice, or improper judgment. In a nutshell, fairness and accuracy in the U.S. criminal justice would only be more efficient if these two parties were treated as they deserve to.

ReferencesBohm, R. M., & Walker, J. T. (2006). Demystifying crime and criminal justice. Los Angeles, Calif: Roxbury Pub.Singer, A. (2012). Should children be tried as adults? Retrieved May 1, 2014, from http://www.examiner.com/article/should-children-be-tried-as-adults