Should Juvenile Offenders Be Tried as Adults - Research Paper Example

Should Juvenile Offenders Be Tried As Adults? INTRODUCTION Since the origin of Juvenile Law, the system of justice covered under this area is based on certain specific principles that are separated from the ones specified for adult criminals. The system of providing guidance under the juvenile law is to treat the juvenile criminals with a separate status than that of the adult criminals. According to the guidelines specified under the juvenile law, criminals who are below the age of 18 years are treated not severely in comparison with other adult criminals (American Bar Association 1-5). However, this process of providing justice is associated with several controversies that are related with the providence of the law and thus affecting the sense of security of the society and its members. Correspondingly, there is a rising concern among the people about the needs of the specifications that are related with the changing mentalities of the children. These changes are even transforming the social status of the children. Depending on the changed social status prevalent within the present times, a huge change in the cognitive development of the individuals is witnessed. Thus, it is evident that there are several loopholes present within the law making body, which started operating almost a decade ago (American Bar Association 1-5). In the present era, there are controversies in terms of punishing people under the juvenile system. There are specific arguments for developing the status of the young offenders who already crossed the adolescent stage. With the changing times, there is a huge amount of confusion about the individual development amid the children with respect to the age when a child attains maturity and can commit crimes with the mental stability that are perceived to be possessed by an adult (Fox 29-39). This change in the chronology has certainly influenced the existing law within the juvenile system of governance, which made it prominent that the existing system of law making is obsolete and fails to meet the needs of the changing times. Furthermore, the status quo of adolescence, as mentioned in the law, also generate a series of questions about the treatment that they should be receiving based on the changing needs of the society (Ventrell 1-30). The essay elaborates on the specifications, which are provided under juvenile law and even details out the areas that evidence the inappropriateness to meet the elated needs of the society. Furthermore, detailed elaborations will be provided to determine whether the juvenile criminals can be treated under the same system of justice as that of the adults. Specially mentioning, there is a huge deviation among the status of child criminals as stated under the juvenile law and the terrible extent of crimes that they commit. Based on the level of threat that the child criminals impose on the society, there lays a huge requirement of punishing the children as that of the adults. Thus, this thesis emphasizes the notion that to meet the needs of the society, the juvenile offenders should be punished as adults because they break the law even being aware of the consequences however, there should be more rehabilitation programs to help the kids. They Break Law. The tendency of the juvenile criminals is identified to commit crimes as well as break laws due to which their development in cognitive abilities get restricted irrespective of the fact that they have been previously punished for the same. They Are Aware of the Consequence. The juvenile criminals are observed to bear the tendency of committing crimes even knowing about the consequences of the same. This is reckoned to be a threatening tendency persistent amid the juvenile criminals, reflecting the fact that the criminals will be committing more crimes even when they are repeatedly punished for the same. There Should Be More Rehabilitation Programs to Help the Kids. Instead of providing the rehabilitation programs for the overall juvenile criminals, the same can also be provided to the kids as well, as this would help them to develop their respective abilities and lead a better life. DISCUSSION Juvenile law is referred to be a fine line separating system of justice for the children under a certain age to that of the adults. Notably, this system of justice has its origin relying on separate circumstances and developed under diverse situations. The history of jurisdiction evidences incorporating a series of changes based on the needs of different societal settings and fulfilling the same during the era of colonization (Ventrell 1-30). With changing needs of offences and varied developments in the mode of committing crime, the law system must be developed. The model, which reflects the ideology of juvenile courts, is found to be inappropriate for the level of threats committed by the juvenile criminals in the present day context. It is projected that the juvenile law has been framed in different societal settings and under various legal obligations that are subjected to up-gradations based on the development of individual needs of justice (Ventrell 1-30). In my viewpoint, the laws that are related with the juvenile are old and needs alteration as per the current development within the system of governance. I even feel that the existing systems of judgment that is prominent within the domain of juvenile system of justice is quite old and is even likely to affect the overall standard of justice and transparency within the system. Furthermore, the review of the different needs of the people could be identified as developing under the legal obligations framed within the social norms. This has been acting as a huge development within the system and providing effective support to fulfill the above stated objective (Singer and McDowall 521-536). A series of changes can be visible within the social settings and numerous inclusions are even apparent within the system of providing justice in the juvenile system of governance (Singer and McDowall 521-536). During the initial years of the juvenile system of governance, the children were provided with indulgent level of punishment. However, at present, based on the series of events that are happening around me, I can even say that change in the societal settings and level of threat imposed by juvenile offenders prompt on developing a system that would enforce stricter punishments for the minors committing dreadful crimes. With the dreadfulness of crimes committed in the present years, the concern for introducing the system of juvenile law has certainly gained momentum. Children committing terrible crimes such as murders, rapes and other dreadful criminal offenses are released from jails after serving a short tenure of punishment, as they fall under the juvenile system of governance. With the change in the mental status and the level of cognitive development, it is noted that the children in the present domain are committing greater level of criminal offenses than that of the earlier years. Thus, with the changing tenacities in the level of crime, the juvenile system of governance must also be changed based on the changes incorporated within the society. Many theorists are of the opinion that the law for juveniles must be reframed to modify the existing laws specified for the young criminals (Hecker and Steinberg 300-306). Furthermore, a lot of discussion and arguments are found to be apparent within the domain of determining an exact age when a child attains adulthood. Several researches support the view that a person having offensive psychologies develops the same at a very early stage of life (Allard and Young 1-10). Accordingly, I have developed my viewpoints representing the fact that people who are suffering from different psychological imbalances and tend to commit crimes must be treated under rehabilitation, else others should be provided with strict punishment. According to Hecker and Steinberg, varied psychological imbalances lead towards committing heinous crimes (300-302). Conversely, Redding stated the changes are being incorporated within the juvenile system of governance under the US government to meet with the needs of the society (1-2). In this regard, one of such changes includes lowering down the age of the criminals as per the dreadfulness of the crimes that they have already committed (Redding 1-11). Young and Gainsborough elaborated the fact that the present system of juvenile governance is incapable to meet the needs of the societal members (1-5). More importantly, based on the changes incorporated in the nature of the crimes that commit by the children in this modern day context, the juvenile courts take into concern varied jurisdiction modes in order to control such crimes (Salekin, Rogers and Ustad 381-387). In this regard, Salekin, Rogers and Ustad argued about enormous sophistication as well as maturity and higher level of cunningness that possess by the young criminals as compared to the adult ones(381-383). Hence, I can comment based on the above reviews that depending on the dreadfulness of the crimes being committed, the criminals must be treated as juvenile or as adults. Thus, several forensic mental health tests conducted upon young adults being treated under juvenile system makes it evident that they are capable of committing crimes that are equally offensive as that of adults. I can even infer that the cognitive skills among these criminals are quite developed and they can be treated under similar punishments as that of the adults. The above discussed change in the psychological attitudes of the children has certainly introduced various laws that are prevalent within the juvenile system of governance. The extent of committing dreadful criminal offences by the children during the initial days of their lives is imposing huge impact on the society. Moreover, there is an increasing tendency, which is visible amid the children with a criminal mentality, at a repeated basis (Redding 1-11). Correspondingly, the waiver of punishments under the juvenile court system acts as a catalyst, which increases the tendency to commit crimes amongst the adolescent criminals. This change within the psychological domain is even going to create a huge amount of impact on the social development and in turn endangers the security of the society (Allard and Young 1-10). According to varied forensic psychologists, the changes in the syndrome of anger and aggression that are prevalent amid the youth and adolescent offenders involved with any crime are far more dangerous than that of the adult criminals (Salekin, Rogers and Ustad 381-387). Hence, psychologists of this present era infer that the juvenile offenders should be treated under similar status quo as that of the adults. I can even suggest that the juvenile offenders who have attained adolescence are capable of committing heinous crimes as much as that of adults. Cruise (2006) stated that the juvenile law focuses on introducing and developing different rehabilitation programs that tend to improve the psychological conditions of the young criminals. This is even noted that the transfers from the juvenile courts to the adult courts are acting as a huge amount of blockage, creating mental distress amid the youths. These cognitive blockages eventually impose maximum stress on the mental development of the prisoners. This is even pushing them to commit dangerous crimes (Richards 1-6). Furthermore, there are deviations observed in the psychological development procedure amid the youths and the children committing crimes. However, equal treatment for the criminals can lead to severity of situations, as the mental development amid the criminals is not equal. Such huge stress can lead to a situation of mental blockage and can even make them to commit suicides (Ainsworth 64-74). Thus, based on my understanding, there should be separate mode of treatment based on the cognitive development of the people and maintaining efficient transparency within the system. It has been apparently observed that the psychological imbalances prevailing amid the young adults could be rectified through better use of distinct rehabilitation programs, which are apparent under the juvenile system of judgment. These programs provide better future life to the children who have been involved into committing such terrible crimes owing to the reasons of distress or lack of proper guidance. In this regard, it can be argued that having the perception of providing extreme punishment could turn fatal depending on the severity of situations and needs for cognitive development (Ainsworth 64-74). Notably, several situations evidence the fact that each crime commit by the criminals has certain obligations. Hence, introducing a rehabilitation program instead of providing them with severe punishments can improve their state of psychological imbalances and even prevent them from committing severe crimes in future (Chambliss 2-10). According to Muscar, the rising issues of the youth crimes have been creating obligations and thus needed special attention to address the same (2-6). From the above understanding, I can duly conclude that separate legal actions need to be taken into concern for developing the system of justice while responding to the crimes commit by youths and children. Thus, there were separate methods to address the issues such as criminal offences committed by the criminals at their adolescent age (Muscar 2-6). With the changing times, needs of specifications under the law that would allow the criminals to be trailed on the adult courts were evident. In this context, Griffin, Addie, Adams and Firestine commented that by the end of the 20th century, the need for a separate system of governance for the youths and children came into being (1-10). Therefore, the need for seclusion amid the ages of offenders to be trailed under the juvenile system, which must be reconsidered as the criminal offences committed by adolescent criminals, is noted to be of equally dangerous as that of the adults. Hence, there must be a separate system for children who are involved with offences and youths involved in committing heinous crimes (Griffin, Addie, Adams, and Firestine 1-10). In accordance with different strategic developments that are being incorporated within the system of juvenile law, I can argue that there are various needs of legality of objects, which must effectively elaborate the procedure of treating criminals under different age groups within the existing legal system. I found that juvenile courts have been set up with the objective of developing societies in the form of providing opportunities to the children or the minors with a better future life. As per my knowledge, the need for introducing rehabilitation and other related programs to guide the children from being secluded from the society was evident during the initial years of setting up a juvenile system. However, the changing times has made it quite evident that the society today is guided by a separate rule and the traditional system of law must be reframed to provide a better lifestyle to the people (Levitt 1156-1159). In this context, reforms must be incorporated within the system of juvenile system to enhance the credibility of governance. I strongly believe that by changing the modes of punishing, the respective government will be able to ensure transparency within the system and likewise develop the overall governance structure. By developing this system, the government can ensure that the legal implications are capable enough to develop a proper system of justice within the predesigned governance structure (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman and Carver 1-6). Many theorists argued that based on the development of psychological attributes of an offender, the legal operations must be conducted in such a way so that the ability of the government to maintain the decorum within the state is enhanced. Thus, according to me, by providing lenient punishments to the adolescent criminals, their tendencies to commit the crimes on a repeated basis have increased within a social domain (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman and Carver 1-6). Furthermore, I found that the psychological tests conducted on the criminals even reflect their cognitive development and act as hindrance towards the system of law. This hindrance eventually raised the chances of committing crimes on a repeated basis even being aware of the consequences. Correspondingly, there is a tendency among the youths to consider the rehabilitation programs that run by the respective government to be of mere lenient (Allard and Young 1-10). These situations are even going to affect the legality of objects that trigger the need of developing the system of law. Furthermore, I witnessed that unlike the child offenders, the adolescent criminals even develop a tendency of committing dreadful crimes on a repetitive basis. Hence, as per my understanding, they must be provided with stricter punishments that would create a situation of fear as well as a belief of not committing the crime on a recurring basis (Salekin, Rogers and Ustad 381-387). Specially mentioning, there is a huge need of revising the existing policies and procedures that are guiding the system of governance within the social settings and developing the system of jurisdiction. Depending on the various needs of the society, the traditional set up of the juvenile system must be reframed and a certain number of criminals must be put on trial in the adult courts than the juvenile courts. The system of transfer of certain number of criminals must be considered and the age of the juvenile system of jurisdiction is ought to be reconsidered (Salekin, Rogers and Ustad 381-387). Commendably, based on the extent of dangerous criminal offences committed by the youths, their nature can be found as similar to that of the adult criminals. Hence, treating them under similar status is legal and must be conducted to increase the relevance of the system. Moreover, the young offenders at certain times bear the tendency of committing crimes with a similar level of threat. This must be taken into concern by the legal entities providing jurisdiction to reframe the existing system of law and enhance the transparency of the jurisdiction (Griffin, Addie, Adams, and Firestine 1-10). In relation to the above context, I can argue that the different preventive rehabilitation programs prevalent within the system of justice have become ineffective within the changed social settings. Based on the above observations I can further comment that the existing system of juvenile treatment is noted to be improper in preventing criminals from committing such crimes on a repetitive basis. Thus, various law systems must be made more flexible and should be narrowed based on the code of conduct of the criminals developed for revealing their status before the court. The tendencies of the juvenile offenders towards breaking laws at a repetitive basis after possessing greater awareness of the consequences even makes me believe that the prevalent juvenile system of jurisdiction must be redeveloped to increase security. I can even infer that the juvenile laws that were framed almost a decade ago must be reconsidered and young adults must be treated separately from children offenders. By considering the fact that the rehabilitation programs can prevent the children from being deviated from the society, the same also provide opportunities for the adolescents to commit crimes. Hence, I can duly conclude that the juvenile criminals attaining adolescence or having a hindering attribute must be treated with equal strictness as that of adults. CONCLUSION Juvenile courts were set up with the motive to add transparency to the system of governance in terms of law that was prevalent since the initial days. Based on the social needs that prevailed within the system of the governance, the juvenile courts were developed for enhancing the lifestyle of the children specifically for those who found to be involved into committing crimes. Specially mentioning, the juvenile courts were established to seclude the system of treating children from that of the adults. It can be affirmed that the level of mental development, which is evident amid the children, is less as compared to the adults. Hence, there was a requirement of developing a special system of jurisdiction for children. However, based on the changing societal conditions, the lenient system of governance that was prevalent for the children is being considered as a scope for committing crimes on a repetitive note. This is even creating a level of stress on the social system and blocking the development of several other different programs. Several instances are evident, which reflect the fact that the presence of a series of rehabilitation programs for reframing the lifestyle of the juvenile offenders fails to comply with the social standards. Additionally, the level of the threats, which is being imposed by the criminals on the social settings, eventually triggers the need for developing the overall system of jurisdiction. The young adults in the present era are inclined towards committing crimes with more efficiency as compared to the adults. This change in the social settings puts the society in a state of risk. Thus, the juvenile courts must be dealing with such offenders more efficiently and should be integrating stricter rules to punish them that would not only enhance the ability of the system to deal with them more efficiently, but would also aid in maintaining its transparency as well. Based on the changing societal settings and the level of threats impose by the young criminals, there is a huge need for reframing the different existing mode of punishment. This reframing can be made possible by putting the young offenders on trail as compared to the adults due to their breaking of laws after remaining aware about the different consequences. Thus, it can be concluded that juvenile offenders should be tried as adults. Works Cited American Bar Association. “The History of Juvenile Justice.” Division for Public Education (n.d.): 1-5. Print. Allard, Patricia and Malcolm Young. “Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court: Perspectives for Policymakers and Practitioners.” The Sentencing Project (2000): 1-10. Print. Ainsworth, Janet E. “The Court’s Effectiveness in Protecting the Rights of Juveniles in Delinquency Cases.” The Future of Children the Juvenile Court 6.3. (1996): 64-74. Print. Butts, Jeffrey A. and Daniel P. Mears. “Reviving Juvenile Justice in a Get-Tough Era.” Youth & Society, 33.2 (2001): 169-198. Print. Chambliss, William J. “Juvenile Offenders in Adult Courts.” Juvenile Crime and Justice (2011): 2-20. Print. Cruise, Keith R. “Special Issues in Juvenile Justice.” Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice 2.3 (2006): 177-203. Print. Fox, Sanford J. “The Early History of the Court.” The Future of Children the Juvenile Court 6.3 (1996): 29-39. Print. Fox, Sanford J. “Juvenile Justice Reform: An Historical Perspective.” Stanford Law Review 22.6 (1970): 1187-1239. Print. Griffin, Patrick, Sean Addie, Benjamin Adams, and Kathy Firestine. “Trying Juveniles as Adults: An Analysis of State Transfer Laws and Reporting.” U.S. Department of Justice (2011): 1-27. Print. Hecker, Thomas and Laurence Steinberg. “Psychological Evaluation at Juvenile Court Disposition.” American Psychological Association, Inc 33.3 (2002): 300-306. Print. Levitt, Steven D. “Juvenile Crime and Punishment.” The Journal of Political Economy 106.6 (1998): 1156-1185. Print. Lipsey, Mark W., James C. Howell, Marion R. Kelly, Gabrielle Chapman and Darin Carver. “Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs.” Center for Juvenile Justice Reform (n.d.): 1-68. Print. Muscar, Jaime E. “Advocating the End of Juvenile Boot Camps: Why the Military Model Does Not Belong in the Juvenile Justice System.” UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy 12.1 (2008): 1-50. Print. Redding, Richard E. “Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency?” U.S. Department of Justice (n.d.): 1-12. Print. Richards, Kelly. “What Makes Juvenile Offenders Different From Adult Offenders?” Trends & Issues 409 (2011): 1-6. Print. Salekin, Randall T., Richard Rogers and Karen L. Ustad. “Juvenile Waiver To Adult Criminal Courts Prototypes for Dangerousness, Sophistication-Maturity, and Amenability to Treatment.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 7.2 (2001): 381-408. Print. Singer, Simon I. and David McDowall. “Criminalizing Delinquency: The Deterrent Effects of the New York Juvenile Offender Law.” Law & Society Review 22.3 (1988): 521-536. Print. Ventrell, Marvin. “Evolution Of The Dependency Component Of The Juvenile Court.” National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (1998): 1-30. Print. Young, Malcolm C. and Jenni Gainsborough. “Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court an Assessment of Trends and Consequences.” The Sentencing Project (2000): 1-10. Print. Read More