Should Juveniles Be Treated as Adults in Violent Crimes - Research Paper Example

INTRODUCTION Juvenile offenders in America are facing an increased demand from the public to face punitive measures in adult criminal courts becauseof increased rate of crime, and inefficacy of the juvenile justice system. In the last two decades, a national trend to strengthen the punishment on criminal acts committed by youthful offenders has elicited mixed reactions from various quarters within the country. Supporters of harsher punitive measures to adolescents engaged in crime argue that this would ensure that they are responsible for their offenses. In contrast, people opposed to this concept argue that juveniles are different from adults such that they are immature, and have a reduced comprehension of the criminal justice system they are engaged in. The opposing side states that it is unfair for the criminal justice system to try and punish juveniles without regarding their developmental immaturity. The controversy and validity of trying juveniles as adults in criminal courts is analyzed critically through the history of juvenile justice system, the changing attitudes towards juvenile crime and present research and studies on juvenile justice. Eventually, I conclude that juvenile offenders should not be tried as adults. History of juvenile justice system Origination of Juvenile Justice System The Juvenile Court was established in the United States in the early 20th century based on the principle that juveniles were different instinctively from adults, and that it was the responsibility of the state to defend and rehabilitate the young delinquents. Throughout the past two decades, in spite of the considerable declines in adolescence delinquent rates, the viewpoint of the public on youth violence has motivated the prevalent support for elimination of the juvenile court system as well as the implementation of more stringent crime legislation in the country. Instances of such stringent legislation would permit children to be tried as adults, and increased reliance on imprisonment as a false resolution to juvenile criminal behavior (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, n.d.). During 1950s and 1960s, the public concern increased over the juvenile justice system’s efficacy not because of its rehabilitative principle, but because of a supposed lack of efficacy and the population of youthful offenders apprehended indefinitely. The Supreme Court was called upon during 1960s to make a sequence of defining decisions, which resulted in formalization of the juvenile courts, making them more like the criminal courts. The juvenile courts required formal hearings in circumstances in which juveniles were relinquished to the adult courts. Furthermore, youthful offenders facing imprisonment were permitted to exercise the right to obtain charges’ notice pressed against them besides the right for representation by a trial lawyer. The doctrine of substantiation beyond practical uncertainty was established in place of predominance of proof for arbitration. The perception of the public in 1980s was that juvenile crime was on increase because of the leniency of the juvenile system. Some states adopted disciplinary laws, such as compulsory prison terms and involuntary waivers to adult court for particular offenses. The stringent measures on youthful offenders increased through 1990s with the transfer provisions facilitating the relocation of juvenile law-breakers to adult criminal justice system. The courts as well as custody process shifted focus from rehabilitation to punishment (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, n.d.). Offender Based Prior to the 20th century, juveniles in America were reprimanded and incarcerated in a similar manner to the adults. The early penitentiaries and prisons in the country housed all categories of offenders, including men and women, youths and adults, psychologically unhealthy as well as healthy individuals within the same facility. This led to overcrowding of the confinements and sleaze that juveniles experienced when detained with adult lawbreakers. As a result, children were separated for confinement in separate facility entirely for them. More of such facilities were later constructed for imprisonment of juvenile offenders. These facilities were inclined towards the offenders, specifically children, indicted of various crimes besides poor, rebellious and orphaned children (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, n.d.). The same criminal courts were used to try both children and adults alike. Nevertheless, an educational reform movement in Britain spearheaded the reforms for juvenile system during the 16th century because of the argument that children were different as compared to small adults in terms of the development of moral and cognitive abilities. There was an increased advocacy for a different court system to try the youthful offenders under different legislation from adults (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, n.d.). Rehabilitation over punishment The exclusive confinements for children were also faced with congestion and appalling conditions besides accusations of brutality. Different states within America shifted their priority to rehabilitate youthful offenders instead of punishing them by confinement, which led to various challenges to these youthful offenders. The rehabilitations were proposed to be in form of equipping such juvenile offenders with essential skills and knowledge that would help them sustain themselves after serving their probation periods. Training and industrial schools were established to help rehabilitate such youthful offenders. Massachusetts was the first state to open and operate a training school. More inclination was given to occupational training and instruction. The majority of such facilities were established afar from the cities because in the conventional times the towns and cities were perceived to be the source of criminal temptation for juveniles. The countryside settings were considered to offer such youthful offenders a more upright setting for life. The training institutions in the conventional times still remain to be the model and foundation of juvenile imprisonment presently. Subsequently, more changes were embraced by the juvenile correctional systems, such as individualized prognosis and treatment, improved types of rehabilitative rehabilitation and enhanced educational training. Notwithstanding, up-to-date the collective model of concentrating huge population of youthful offenders in a single institution has persisted (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, n.d.). In the early 20th century, juvenile courts were first created in America, particularly in Illinois. After a few decades, all states in America had embraced separate juvenile systems except two states. The juvenile justice system was established under the principle of parens patriae borrowed from the British thinking that the state had the authority to arbitrate and offer protection for children whose parents failed to offer appropriate care as applicable in juvenile law-breaking. The fundamental motivation behind the juvenile court system was to offer rehabilitation and compassionate supervision for wayward children (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, n.d.). Consequently, considerable differences in the juvenile and criminal court structures were in place. The juvenile court focused more on the offender and not the offense committed. In addition, it was inclined toward rehabilitation and not punishing the youthful offenders. The crimes committed by people below the age of 18 were arbitrated in a juvenile court. Unusual exceptions were few and were necessitated through a waiver to transfer them to the adult courts. The new juvenile courts were much more flexible and comfortable for the youths than the criminal courts because of the rehabilitative mission among other factors. Various dispositional alternatives were availed to the presiding judges in relation to the circumstance of the child and not explicitly the crime committed (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, n.d.). Supreme Court Formalizes Juvenile Courts Formal Hearings: Kent v. United States In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Kent v. United States that it was constitutionally permissible to relocate youthful offenders from the juvenile to the adult criminal justice system to be tried as adults and not minors. As from that moment, increased trends have been witnessed in transferring juvenile offenders to the criminal justice systems for trials. Prior to this ruling, transfer determinations emphasized whether juveniles could be transformed. In contrast, presently, the willingness to rehabilitation is majorly a less important concern. The primary focus of courts currently is mainly on the possible risk of gravity and the maturity level of the juvenile offender. The risk of gravity may negate entirely the consideration for rehabilitation because these two factors result in conflicting outcomes. As such, gravity is the much heavier concern (Parry, 2009). Presently, most courts make gravity determinations based on more than the test scores of the juveniles on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. This is an instrument measures whether a defendant is a psychopath. Psychopathy is regarded as the strongest indicator of possibility for violent behavior and response for treatment in adults. Regrettably, the change in focus from rehabilitation to punishment is in accordance with the changed function of juvenile courts as from 1960s (Parry, 2009). As a result of the formalized hearings of juvenile offenses in criminal courts, individual states in America established different aspects to reflect on when to relocate an adolescent to an adult court. Most of the factors were influenced by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Kent, such as the gravity of the alleged offense, the manner in which the supposed offense was committed; for instance, involved violence, aggression or willfulness. Additional factors included offense type, indictment possibility and potential consolidation with adult codefendants. The past records of the youthful offender and his or her maturity, rehabilitation possibility and public safety concerns would also be put into consideration. Nevertheless, it is important to consider that juvenile offenders are immature and, thus, are generally less capable of comprehending the legal process they are engaged in as opposed to adults. In order for children to understand substantially the legal process they are involved in, they should develop the skills needed to make suitable decisions. These capabilities are not developed until children are at least 15 years. Further, such skills may not mature fully until the age of 17 years (Parry, 2009). Rights to an Attorney: In Re Gault The Supreme Court made a ruling in 1967 that ascertained that youthful offenders accused of criminal activities in a crime proceeding should be accorded most of similar due process rights like adults. They were assured of rights like right to judicious charge notifications, confront witnesses, access an attorney and against self-incrimination. The decision of the court set the boundaries of the due process in delinquency proceedings between juveniles and adults. The court declined the claim of the reformers that the criminal responsibility of children was justly and accurately determined by the juvenile justice system. The due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by the Supreme Court based on the assertion that it needed similar procedures for both children and adults. Nonetheless, it determined that youthful offenders should at least receive optional equivalents; therefore, in a juvenile criminal trial, children were accorded the right to access a legal representative among other rights. Later, the Supreme Court made a sequence of decisions, which enabled criminal proceedings of youthful law-breakers to meet the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard. Moreover, juveniles facing charges of violating criminal law are not permitted to a jury trial against the essential elements panorama of a compassionate, comfortable protective proceeding. The cases of due process ruled by the Supreme Court on juvenile delinquency led to reforms in state-juvenile court systems in America (Cole & Smith, 2009). Changing Attitudes toward juvenile crime Tougher Crime Legislation Offense Based After reforming the juvenile justice system in the country with an increased emphasis on the offenders and the mission to rehabilitate against punishing, the rate of criminal activities committed by youthful offenders increased significantly in the country since mid-1980s. The rate of delinquent crime rate increase in the country was directly proportional to the overall rate of crime increase in the United States. More juveniles were in detention for violent index crimes, including theft, arson and robbery among other crimes. The highest increase in crime rate was among the youngest offenders. Juveniles below 15 years increased their crime rate to approximately 94% between 1980 and 1995. The increase was attributed to increased population of teenagers in the country. A decline was witnessed between 1994 and 1996 (Redding, 1999). According to Redding (1999), the ineffectiveness of the juvenile justice system was blamed for the improved rate of criminal activities among the youthful offenders. The public supposed that the juvenile justice system was very comfortable and soft on the youthful law-breakers in the country. The core mission of the juvenile system was to rehabilitate and not to punish; therefore, the public perceived that this necessitated the juvenile offenders to engage in criminal activities because they would not face any punitive measures. The public wanted the juvenile offenders to receive tougher and punitive actions against their alleged criminal actions. Among the recommendations that would form the stringent measures included confining juvenile offenders in adult penitentiaries. The public increasingly held that the youthful offenders should be made responsible for their criminal acts, and as such ought to be punished. In addition, the public argued that the majority of the youthful offenders were beyond rehabilitation, and that rehabilitation was not effective in curbing the increasing crime among the youths. Moreover, there was need for increased prevention of the criminal acts increasingly committed by the juvenile offenders in the country. The public argued that the problem of increased criminal engagements of the youths could be tackled through detaining violent juveniles into their adulthood (Redding, 1999). The offenders were no longer the emphasis as there was need to prevent the occurrence of the criminal offenses. Change was sought from a focus on the offender, juveniles, to the offense like the increased criminal acts they committed. Trend Moves from Rehabilitation to Punishment Criminal punishment in America has the possibility of accomplishing four objectives, namely, avoidance, incapacitation, retribution and rehabilitation. The efficacy of any form of criminal punishment in the country should be assessed against the four objectives aforementioned. The punishments given to the criminal offenders ought not to be more stringent than necessary to accomplish the objectives. Advocates of life imprisonment without parole for instance, argue that such sentencing is necessary to ensure that the criminal justice system provides worst offenses with worst punishment. The emphasis has shifted to offense in determining justice at the expense of age and responsibility of the youthful offenders (Human Rights Watch, 2005). The increased crime rate among the youthful offenders compelled the public to shift the focus of the juvenile justice system from rehabilitation to punishment. This was motivated by the fact that punishment would ensure that offenders are responsible for their criminal deeds. The effectiveness of rehabilitation principle was questionable as it did not help resolve the challenges that youths were experiencing in committing crimes. Instead, there was an increased crime rate. An alternative solution of emphasizing the mission of punishment instead of rehabilitation was required to resolve the rising crime rate in the nation. The increasing rate of crimes, severity and gravity of the offenses committed by children warranted the most punitive sentence possible to ensure that they were held responsible for their actions. Punishment provides a retributive function when the criminal acts of the youthful offenders are appropriately met. The primary principle of retribution is that criminal decrees ought to be associated straight to individual responsibility of the juvenile offender (Human Rights Watch, 2005). Accomplishing the principle of proportionality requires the juvenile justice system to consider the offense’s nature and the offender’s conscientiousness. Transfer Laws Alter Jurisdictional Boundaries Increase in Juveniles Tried As Adults Both the valid or supposed rise in youthful crime rate prompted constitutional amendments intended to convince public apprehensions, enhance the efficacy and effect of juvenile system and control additional escalation in youthful felony rate. Both the state and federal governments reacted to the indignation of the public at increasing juvenile crime through amending the transfer statutes. This provided the transfer of youthful law-breakers from juvenile to adult criminal system (Redding, 1999). The modifications and amendments made to the state transfer regulations have enhanced the population of appropriate youthful offenders through reducing the age prerequisite and intensifying the list of transferable crimes. Further, the population of youthful law-breakers has increased because of the elimination of various aspects to be considered before the transfers. The majority of states in America have for example, legislated the least relocation age at 14 or lower. In addition, most of the states presently necessitate relocations for adolescents who engage in brutal crimes like armed robbery and murder. Some states, including Alaska and Nebraska presently permit juveniles of all ages to be relocated for many crimes (Redding, 1999). Roper v. Simons After, the increased transfer of juvenile offenders to be tried in adult criminal courts, these courts have been leading the fight to revive the juvenile court model in which justice for children is individualized. This position is the latest change in reshaping the model of juvenile justice system to address the criminal engagements of youths perfectly. In 2005 during the last existence of the Rehnquist court, a landmark ruling was made in Roper v. Simons case that eliminated juvenile death penalty in criminal justice (Tanenhaus, 2012). The decision was supported by scientific research in which youths were found to be different from adults. The research revealed that youths are immature, more vulnerable to peer pressure and are still in the process of developing their character as well as personality. Adults and juveniles possess considerable differences in terms of their development and cognitive capacities. As a result, juveniles are less responsible and competent mentally if compared against adults in criminal proceedings (Parry, 2009). The justice system should consider the differences between children and adults, recognizing that juveniles are less responsible than adults and more willing to change. The society has a responsibility to protect children, and establish a system whose primary foundation is to protect, treat and rehabilitate instead of punishing and justice (Steinberg, 2003). Current juvenile justice studies and research Transfers May Increase Recidivism Rates The primary function of the relocation laws is to improve the public protection against severe and aggressive youthful offenders. Studies have revealed that community protection may be abridged in long-term through transferring youthful law-breakers to adult criminal courts. According to Redding (1999), three current large-scale researches have revealed that youths tried n adult criminal courts have increased rates of recidivism after release as opposed to adolescent offenders tried in juvenile courts. A study carried out in Minnesota in 1996 for example, established superior recidivism rates for relocated youthful offenders than non-transferred ones. Further, a prior study had revealed greater recidivated rate of 150% in juvenile delinquents tried under the adult criminal system compared to those handled in juvenile justice system (Redding, 1999). Transferring juvenile offenders to adult criminal courts leads to increased rates of recidivism among majority of offenders. This has been attributed to less amenability to treatment. The role of amenability in to treatment in relocation verdicts and recidivism should be evaluated to inform the policy and practice of transfer concerning the kind of offenders to transfer. Moreover, this may be because the efforts of rehabilitation of youths in juvenile systems are more effectual due to focus on non-punitive as well as personalized treatment regimes. Brain Development May Be Incomplete Developmental factors have a possibility of influencing the competence of young offenders to stand trial in adult criminal courts. Children aged between 10 and 17 years still undergo brain development in various capacities. First, they are emotionally immature with lower intellectual and social aptitudes than adults. The development of social, cognitive, moral and psychological aspects of a child is an important biological process that takes place during this stage. The cognitive and emotional ability of a child still develops through the adolescent stage. As a result, because of the developments that still take place during this stage in life, it is unfair and inappropriate to compare youths and adults in terms of their competence (Steinberg, 2003). Ultimately, a just punishment for a mature person applied to a juvenile would be unfair and unsuitable because their competencies differ and juveniles would not be able to comprehend and interpret the consequences effectively (Steinberg, 2000). Juvenile and Institutional Programs Reduce Recidivism Rates in Juveniles The punishment given to youthful law-breakers in adult criminal courts makes them feel as if they have been treated unfairly; thus, resulting in various counter-deterrent effects like stigmatization, reduced self-esteem, increased shame and guilt as well as solidifying of the offending self-concept. Additionally, such youths would experience weakened family and peer relations besides reduced prospects of education and employment. As a result, they tend to focus on themselves instead of their victims. These effects can be done away with if the youths are tried through the juvenile system, which focuses on rehabilitation and not punishment. The rehabilitation principle is more appropriate for offending youths because it is customized to suit individual needs with no punitive treatments regimes. In turn, the juvenile offenders may feel that they are not unfairly treated (Redding, 1999). SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The Juvenile Court was established based on the principle that juveniles were different instinctively from adults. It was, therefore, the responsibility of the state to defend and rehabilitate the young delinquents. The offender was the focus of the initial juvenile justice system before it shifted to the offense and need for punishment in place of rehabilitation. This has been motivated by the general increase in crime rates committed by youths. The public perception is that juvenile crime rate has increased because of inefficacy of the juvenile system, which does not lay responsibility on the offenders; hence, no punitive measures. Need for implementation of more stringent criminal laws for juveniles increased, emphasizing the need to try them as adults in criminal courts. Nevertheless, opponents of trying juveniles in adult courts are using findings of recent scientific studies, which reveal that children are not fully developed through their adolescent stage. This implies that they are incompetent to stand trial in adult courts. Furthermore, researches have demonstrated that transfers may increase recidivism rates, whereas juvenile and institutional programs reduce recidivism rates in youthful offenders. Finally, the information presented in the discussion validates the position that children should not be tried as adults because juveniles have vulnerabilities out of their immaturity. The most appropriate way of dealing with such offenders is to emphasis on rehabilitating and integrating them into the society instead of punishing them. This can be achieved effectively through the juvenile justice system. Trying children on adult courts is unfair because they lack adequate comprehension ability to accept the implications of the process they are involved in. The competency standards for juveniles to stand trial with adults are compromised because of the developmental differences, leading to difference in assessing culpability. The juvenile justice system, thus, operates under the principle that youthful law-breakers are immature, implying that they are not developed fully; they have immature judgments and are still developing in personality. On the other hand, the adult criminal courts presume that the offenders are mature in competency, responsibility and not likely to transform. References Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (n.d.). Juvenile Justice History. Retrieved November 28, 2012, from Cjcj.org: http://www.cjcj.org/juvenile/justice/juvenile/justice/history/0 Cole, G., & Smith, C. (2009). The American System of Criminal Justice, International Edition. New York: Gardners Books . Human Rights Watch. (2005, October 12). Conclusion: Life without Parole and the Purposes of Criminal Punishment. Retrieved November 28, 2012, from hrw.org: http://www.hrw.org/node/11578/section/10 Parry, J. W. (2009). Transfers to adult court and other related criminal incompetency matters involving juveniles. Mental And Physical Disability Law Reporter, 33 (2), 188-195. Redding, R. E. (1999). Examining Legal Issues: Juvenile Offenders in Criminal Court and Adult Prison. Corrections Today, 61 (2), 92-124. Steinberg, L. (2003). Juveniles on Trial. Criminal Justice Magazine, 18 (3), 50-62. Steinberg, L. (2000, January 19). Should Juvenile Offenders Be Tried As Adults?: A Developmental Perspective on Changing Legal Policies. Retrieved November 28, 2012, from northwestern.edu: http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/jcpr/workingpapers/wpfiles/Steinberg_briefing.pdf Tanenhaus, D. S. (2012, June 27). The Roberts Court’s Liberal Turn on Juvenile Justice. Retrieved November 28, 2012, from nytimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/opinion/the-roberts-courts-liberal-turn-on-juvenile-justice.html?_r=1& Read More