Should Young Offenders Be Tried in Adult Courts - Research Paper Example

Juveniles Being Treated in Adult Courts Introduction The juvenile court system has been basically founded on certain key principles regarding theconviction of young offenders who are being tried in adult courts. It entails that juvenile offenders are undeveloped both – morally as well as cognitively and hence it would be unfair to hold them fully accountable for the offences committed by them. Besides, the juvenile delinquents are essentially impressionable owing to their age and hence are relatively more vulnerable to moral as well as social rehabilitation. On these grounds the juvenile courts stressed on accelerating efforts for rehabilitating the delinquents and prevent them from further indulging in such anti-social activities. The option of treating juvenile offenders as adult criminals is now available in almost all states, an option which was initially reserved for exceptional cases only; for instance when the judges were of the opinion that certain felonies committed by young offenders cannot be handled aptly in a juvenile justice system (Siegel, 2009). The recent decade has seen a tremendous shift in the juvenile justice system whereby owing to various reasons, and particularly a rapid rise in juvenile crimes, young offenders are being increasingly tried in adult courts. Such a trend has become a major topic of debate among the lawmakers and scholars alike. In this paper the issue of juvenile offenders being treated in adult courts has been discussed in a comprehensive manner along with other aspect such as the implications of such an action on the youth and the disadvantages of such an initiative. Overview The contemporary shift from the rehabilitative approach to a more serious ‘punitive’ approach has been accounted to the rapid rise in crimes involving young offenders as well as to toughen the laws and policies enacted to deal with crime. Such a transformation was shaped in the early seventies and eventually caught up in the eighties and early nineties when the community at large, started to face extreme negative consequences because of a rapid rise in crimes during those periods and the subsequent inability of the courts or the justice system to prevent or reduce these crimes (Steiner & Hemmens, 2003, p. 1). Such a need to prevent the rapidly rising crime rate led to the development of laws and policies which included the young offenders who were involved in violent crimes to be allowed to be tried in adult courts (Podkopacz & Feld, 2001). Thus factors such as the urgency to prevent the rapidly rising crime rates and to reinforce the public faith in the justice system led to development of a system whereby the young offenders could be tried in adult courts. Implications The phenomenon of trying young offenders in adult courts has been a topic of much debate in the past couple of decades. Various researchers have conducted empirical studies centered on studying the impact of such a trend on the young offenders and it has been observed that it is a serious issue which has the potential to negatively impact the lives of those who have been a victim of such a practice (Bishop, 2000; Bishop & Frazier, 2000; Bishop et al 1996). These studies have revealed that there are varying consequences on the youth who have been tried in adult courts, most of them negative in nature. Such a practice was widely criticized by the researchers and vehemently defended by the law makers who insisted that the practice was implemented in order to act tough on criminals regardless of age and bring down the crime rates. Researchers argue that the principle aim of such a transformation in juvenile justice system intended to toughen up on criminals, hardly helped in achieving desirable results and had no significant impact whatsoever on reducing the crime rate (Bishop, 2000; Bishop & Frazier, 2000; Bishop et al., 1996; Myers, 2003; Podkopacz & Feld, 1996). In a study conducted on young offenders transferred to be tried in adult courts it was found that the probability of re-arrest was highest in such cases (Bishop et al., 1996). There has been no consensus on this issue on the part of researchers who have produced varied theories for such an occurrence. For instance, according to Myers (2003) the fundamental reason for the high rates of re-arrest is the fact that only the high-risk youth are usually transferred to adult courts and hence they are relatively more likely than their low-risk counterparts to indulge in criminal activities. Such an argument refutes the claim made by the law makers that transferring juvenile delinquents to adult courts can help in curbing crime and that such a belief is in fact unfounded and baseless. Furthermore researchers have pointed out that no substantial reduction in crime rate was achieved by such a policy and that the youth offenders were hardly deterred from the likely possibility of being tried in adult courts (Bishop, 2000; Bishop & Frazier, 2000; Jensen & Metsger, 1994; Singer & McDowall, 1988). This proves that such a policy hardly acts as a deterrent and fails to prevent crime rate among the young offenders. This further refutes the claim made by the law makers that acting tough would lead to prevention of crime and help in reducing the overall crime rates. The effect of transfer laws has been inconsequential in curbing juvenile crime rate (Jensen & Metsger, 1994; Singer & McDowall, 1988) as well as in safeguarding the community (Bishop et al., 1996). Also studies have shown that youth transferred to adult courts were highly likely to get involved in anti social behavior further jeopardizing the safety of the public and rendering the laws ineffective in the process. Other researchers have argued that the transfer of young offenders to adult courts can prove to be harmful than helpful. It is claimed that the juveniles who are transferred to adult correctional facilities are highly vulnerable and at a great risk of exposing themselves to the criminogenic environment thus offering them more opportunities to interact with the criminals and get unduly influenced through interaction with incarcerated adult criminals (Myers, 2003; Podkopacz & Feld, 1996). This is also considered to be one of the key reasons of the high rates of re-arrests of young offenders who were tried in adult courts. Thus proving the fact that the practice of trying young offenders in adult courts is more harmful than helpful and prove to be detrimental to the health and well being of both – themselves as well as to the society at large. Such a practice tends to unconsciously promote rather than discourage crime among youth. Furthermore, certain researchers have claimed that young offenders who are tried as adults may experience critical issues related to criminal conviction (Bishop, 2000; Bishop et al., 1996; Gaarder & Belknap, 2002). According to Bishop et al (1996) the young offenders who are tried in adult courts may undergo tremendous and undesirable psychological transformation from vulnerable and unmindful youth to hard-core criminals and irredeemable adults. Such a stigmatization and emotional stress experienced by the juvenile offenders have a tremendous negative impact on their impressionable minds further leading to higher recidivism rates among the youth (Bishop, 2000; Myers, 2003). Another critical aspect of transfer of youth to adult courts is the fact that it may impact their civil rights especially those related to the right to vote. The law of the land entails that convicted youth be barred from voting and holding public office or hold positions of consequence thus, reducing their opportunities to indulge in gainful employment (Bishop & Frazier, 2000; Schindler & Arditti, 2001). Among all these issues the most crucial issue is that of voter disenfranchisement which holds significant value in the life of any citizen and barring the convicted youth of such a right disrupts their chances of rehabilitation or reengaging themselves in the community. It has also been argued by researchers that one of the greatest disadvantages faced by the youth who are tried in adult courts is their inaccessibility to correctional facilities and hence rehabilitation. It is claimed that adult correctional facilities may not be sufficiently equipped to deal with young offenders and hence they may be deprived of such facilities which may have otherwise been made available to them had they been tried in the juvenile courts (Gaarder & Belknap, 2002; Podkopacz & Feld, 1996). Studies indicate that young offenders rarely have access to mental health facilities in adult prisons thus further leading to serious problems for the transferred youth. The negative consequences are heightened and relatively more exaggerated in case of minority youth (Bishop, 2000). Conclusion On the basis of the above discussion it can be safely concluded that trying of youth offenders in adult courts is not only detrimental to their physical and psychological well being but is largely unfair to such youth. This is because, the adult correctional facilities are designed for treating adult offenders and are clearly not suited for the younger criminals who are morally and cognitively undeveloped and are highly vulnerable. Furthermore, the adult justice systems lack proper facilities or credibility in understanding the workings of a young impressionable minds which acts as a major disadvantage for the juvenile offenders. Besides research states that the basic aim of such a practice, of transferring young offenders to adult courts, holds little or no relevance to the final outcome – that of preventing the crime rates and acting tough to deter youth from indulging in criminal activities. In fact, it has been observed that such a practice has substantially increased the occurrence of crime among youth who were tried in adult courts. Thus, it is up to the law makers to stop this practice and devise productive ways to prevent the rise in crime rates. Rehabilitation of youth offenders must be high on the political agenda rather than regressive practices if the benefit of community is to be achieved successfully. References: Bishop, D. M. (2000). Juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice system. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research, Vol. 27, Pp. 81- 167, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bishop, D. M. & Frazier, C. E. (2000). Consequences of transfer. In. J. Fagan & F. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court, Pp. 277-320, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bishop, D. M., Frazier, C. E., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Winner, L. (1996). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Does it make a difference? Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 42, Pp. 171-191. Gaarder, E., & Belknap, J. (2002). Tenuous borders: Girls transferred to adult court. Criminology, Vol. 40, Pp. 481-517. Jensen, E. L., & Metsger, L. K. (1994). A test of the deterrent effect of legislative waiver on violent juvenile crime. Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 40, Pp. 96-104 Myers, D. L. (2003). The recidivism of violent youths in juvenile and adult court. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, vol. 1, Pp. 79-101 Podkopacz, M. R., & Feld, B. C. (2001). The back-door to prison: Waiver reform, “blended sentencing,” and the law of unintended consequences. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Vol. 91, Pp. 997-1072. Schindler, M., & Arditti, J. A. (2001). The increased prosecution of adolescents in the adult criminal justice system: Impacts on youth, family, and community. Marriage & Family Review, Vol. 32, Pp. 165-187 Siegel, L. J., (2009). Introduction to Criminal Justice, CENGAGE Learning Publication, Pp. 665 - 673 Singer, S. I., & McDowall, D. (1988). Criminalizing delinquency: The deterrent effects of the New York juvenile offender law. Law & Society Review, Vol. 22, Pp. 521-536. Steiner, B., & Hemmens, C. (2003). Juvenile waiver 2003: Where are we now? Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Vol. 54, Pp. 1-24. Read More