Love Juvenile Justice - Essay Example

Juveniles Trial by Jury Because the U.S Supreme Court has not man d the right to a jury trial for all juveniles, only 10 states generally allow jury trials as a right for juveniles and another 11 states allow jury trials in special circumstances. Some states contend that it is critical for juveniles to have the right to a jury trial (Whitehead and Lab, 2012). However, I am of the opinion that juveniles should be guaranteed the right to a jury trial. This is for the following reasons.Firstly, a collateral benefit of allowing jury trials is that they may aid rehabilitation.

A juvenile who believes that “the system” has treated him or her unfairly may be less defensive if tried by an objective jury (Elrod and Ryder, 2011, pg. 127). This is to say, a perception of fair treatment may go a long way towards fostering acceptance of responsibility on the part of the juvenile.Secondly, the use of jury trials in delinquency proceedings make a statement to the community and the juvenile regarding the juveniles court’s concern for fundamental due process fairness.Thirdly, unlike in adult courts, the jurors in the juvenile systems are not peers of those on trials.

In some instances, the juvenile may benefit from this fact, because the adults on the jury may remember their own youthful mistakes and indiscretions and feel sympathy (Elrod and Ryder, 2011, pg. 127). If they are parents, jurors also may realize that, under other circumstances, one of their children could be at the defence table. This in as much as may lead to the inclusion of emotions into the final judgement, it eats into the very consciousness of humanity which a jury is supposed to represent.

Finally, Rosenberg (2008) noted that judges generally give a guilty verdict about 25 per cent more often than juries do. This discrepancy is something requiring a level of concern. The American bar association agrees with this finding and concludes that this could as a result of bias from the part of the judges.However, in as much as a trial by the jury is beneficial to the parties involved in any case, but especially the defendant, it also does have some limitations. Jury trials in juvenile proceedings may result to a backlog of cases and hamper the functioning of the juvenile court.

Experience has shown that such trials seriously impede the juvenile justice process (Elrod and Ryder, 2011, pg. 126).Another central issue concerning jury trials for juveniles is the fact that these youth are not tried by a jury of their peers, but a jury of adults. A jury of one’s peers is based on two premises: that the jury be made up of members from the defendants’ community and that the defendant is entitled to an impartial jury (Roesch, Corrado and Dempster, 2001, pg. 53). The process of selecting a jury is a major endeavour, particularly in the American justice system, as the hope of securing an impartial jury is paramount.

A central concern regarding trials for young offenders is that a jury comprised of only adults may hold attitudes about young people that will result in a systematic bias in decision making regarding juveniles defendants as compared to adult defendants (Roesch, Corrado and Dempster, 2001, pg. 53).In my view the composition of the jury should encompass both teens as well as adults. This is because the presence of a teen in the jury presents one of the most powerful motivators in a young person’s life- peer approval and acceptance (Del Carmen and Trulson, 2005, pg. 231). When the youth are sanctioned by their peers, they are much more likely to internalize the harmful impact of their behaviour and change than when sanctioned by adults.

The presence of adult jurors brings about an aspect of maturity and responsible decision making. The adults remembering their own youthful mistakes and indiscretions may be in a position to feel empathy on the defendants as they may be in a position where they can relate to the accusation labelled against the defendant. It is therefore very important that the jury be comprised of both a youth and adults so as to represent two levels of empathy and apparent maturity.Of concern also is the subject of a lenient or harsh sentence from the jury.

Depending on the type of crime, the leniency or harshness of a sentence will depend on the prevailing concerns that are worrying the immediate community from which the defendant hails from. According to Roesch, Corrado and Dempster (2001, pg. 54), there is a widespread overestimation by the general public of the prevalence of youth crime as well as a public belief that youth should be held more accountable for their crimes. This perception according to them results to the sentences passed on to a defendant by their peers to be more than punitive.

Thus, it can be concluded that the extent of the sentence is relative to the prevailing worries of the community and not a decision that can be decided beforehand as going to be linient or harsh.conlusionIn conclusion, in as much as trial by jury for juveniles carries with it some detriments, with it comes an impression of justice, impartiality and fairness and that is all what majority if not all youth defendants request of the justice system.Works CitedDel Carmen, Rolando V and Chad R Trulson.

Juvenile justice: the system, process, and law. illustrated. California: Cengage Learning, 2005.Elrod, Preston and Scott R Ryder. Juvenile Justice: A Social, Historical and Legal Perspective. 3, revised. Ontario: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2011.Roesch, Ronald , Raymond R Corrado and Rebecca J Dempster. Psychology in the courts: international advances in knowledge. illustrated. New York: Routledge, 2001.Whitehead, John T and Steven P Lab. Juvenile Justice: An Introduction. 7. Massachusetts: Elsevier, 2012.