Omparison of a Juvenile Court with an Adult Court - Essay Example

Running Head: Juvenile and Adult Courts Juvenile and Adult Courts: A Comparative Analysis The main objective of this essay is to compare andcontrast Juvenile Court with Adult Court. An overview of the juvenile justice system and a point by point comparison between juvenile and adult courts would be presented. A discussion of the implications for the youthful offender of the trend toward increasing the use of waivers or remanding juveniles to adult court for processing would likewise be determined. Finally, the societal implications of abolishing juvenile court would also be identified. Introduction To err is human, to forgive divine. This is one of the oldest and most famous classic quotations by Alexander Pope, an English Poet and Satirist that delve on the frailty of human beings giving in to susceptibility to commit mistakes. In the course of one’s lifetime, certain situations make it inevitable for people to commit errors which necessitate the imposition of justice. There were marked differences on the foundations of corrections over the past two centuries. The main objective of this essay is to compare and contrast Juvenile Court with Adult Court. An overview of the juvenile justice system and a point by point comparison between juvenile and adult courts would be presented. A discussion of the implications for the youthful offender of the trend toward increasing the use of waivers or remanding juveniles to adult court for processing would likewise be determined. Finally, the societal implications of abolishing juvenile court would also be identified. When a person has been convicted of a crime, there are sentences imposed by the justice system which serve as punishments the purpose of which was for retribution, as a deterrent, and for social control. Usually the sentences range from probation to serving time in prison with intermediate sanctions (Siegel 2002). However, the age factor determines the sanctions and processes imposed by the justice system. Overview of Juvenile Justice System For juveniles, with ages of 17 and below, King (2006) of the National Center for Juvenile Justice averred that “there is not one, but fifty-one juvenile justice systems in the United States. Each system has its own history and set of laws and policies and delivers services to juvenile delinquents in its own way”. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004), “the processing of juvenile offenders is not entirely dissimilar to adult criminal processing, but there are crucial differences. Many juveniles are referred to juvenile courts by law enforcement officers, but many others are referred by school officials, social services agencies, neighbors, and even parents, for behavior or conditions that are determined to require intervention by the formal system for social control.” Point by Point Comparison The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) (1999) presented major differences between juvenile courts and adult courts in the following criteria: goals, accessibility to records, court proceedings, approach, options, jury trial, judgment, and parole. The following point by point comparison presents in detail the differences between the juvenile and adult courts, to wit: CRITERIA JUVENILE COURT ADULT COURT Goals Rehabilitation, treatment Deterrence, punishment and community protection Accessibility To Records Limited to avoid stigma Open public access Court Proceedings Confidential to protect privacy Open to the public Approach Psychological casework taking Legal facts as basis Into account background history; Faces hearing Faces trial Options Preventive detention Right to apply for bond/bail Jury Trial Not all states affords jury trial Right to a jury trial Judgment Delinquent rather than guilty Innocent or guilty Parole Surveillance with possibility Surveillance and monitoring of reintegration to the community of illicit behavior Trying and Sentencing Juveniles as Adults The laws governing trying and sentencing juveniles as adults depend on diverse factors such as “ages, their past records, or the seriousness of the charges against them” (Griffin 2003) Transfer laws focus on the forum where the cases would be held. This is contrasted with blended sentencing laws which are more concerned of addressing the correctional system. Griffin emphasized that “a total of 45 states give juvenile court judges discretion to waive jurisdiction over individual cases involving minors, so as to allow prosecution in adult criminal courts”. The implications of these are: (1) as juveniles, they are not in the capacity and the cognitive skills to fully understand court proceedings; (2) young offenders are exposed to risks and penalties imposed in adult courts (including prisoner-on-prisoner brutality and increased recidivism resulting from a veritable crime school atmosphere); (3) subjecting juveniles to a host of issues such as legal, ethical, developmental, emotional, and pragmatic issues; (4) “transfer to adult court alters the legal process by which a minor is tried. Criminal court is based on an adversarial model, while juvenile court is based on a more cooperative model” (Rhoads 2006); (5) there are differences in legal standards between juvenile and adult courts in terms of competencies in cases of trials; among others. In fact, Siegel (2002) averred that “almost all experts agree that placing children under the age of 18 in any type of jail facility should be prohibited because youngsters can easily be victimized by other inmates and staff, be forced to live in squalid conditions, and be subject to physical and sexual abuse” (p. 320). Some states had legislation that automatically excluded youth charged with the most serious offenses, notably murder, from juvenile court jurisdiction. (Rhoads 2006) Societal Implications of Abolishing Juvenile Court The abolition of juvenile courts has been delved into due to its effectiveness in the rehabilitation errant children. However, by abolishing them, children offenders are automatically subjected to adult courts. Rhoads (2006) emphasized that “the issue of abolishing juvenile criminal courts has been proposed to reflect more appropriate punishment for criminal actions committed by juveniles that coincide with adult crimes”. Although there appears to be cases where violent crimes committed by children warrant imposition of sanctions and penalties proper in adult courts, still, the process and system accorded by juvenile courts are worth undergoing. The very nature of children separates them from adults. They should be accorded with rehabilitative opportunities to reflect and absorb the offenses that have been committed; and thereby give them the chance to change and mature as responsible adults – without the stigma of adults being branded as criminals for life. Conclusion Society certainly has to give them a chance by trying its best in providing the necessary programs. If that fails, then the adult system needs to take over. Meanwhile, the juvenile justice system serves a major purpose in juvenile delinquents. Rather than elimination and reintegration into the adult criminal justice system, an overhaul, more funding, and more initiatives in implementing social programs that provide the parents patriae concept into rehabilitating juvenile delinquents are more reasonable than giving up on society’s innate duties to children. References Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). The Justice System. Retrieved 18 August, 2009 from Griffin, P. (2003). Trying and Sentencing Juveniles as Adults: An Analysis of State Transfer and Blended Sentencing Laws. Retrieved 18 August, 2009 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1999). Juvenile Justice: A Century of Change. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice. Retrieved 18 August, 2009 from Rhoads, A. (2006). A Reflective Comparison of the Juvenile Criminal Justice System v. the Adult Criminal Justice System. Retrieved 18 August, 2009 from Siegel, J. (2002). Intermediate Sanctions and Community Corrections. Retrieved on May 16, 2009 from Read More