Memorandum about the Legality of Treating Juvenile Sex - Assignment Example

MEMORANDUM Introduction The Governor of the State of Confusion is seeking to understand the legality of treating juvenile sex offenders as adults in our contemporary criminal justice system. She is troubled and concerned with the issue of whether it is appropriate for juvenile sex offenders to be tried in adult courts, sentenced to adult prisons as well as why they are required to register under the Megan’s Law of the state. Issues The primary legal question that is required to be addressed is: Should juvenile sex offenders be treated the same way as adults in the criminal justice system? This memorandum will also attempt to address the issue whether it is legally appropriate to try such offenders in adult courts, commit them to adult prisons as well as why they are required to be registered under the state’s Megan’s Law. In addressing these issues, some of the key areas that will be discussed in this paper include: 1. The arguments of the pros of treating juvenile sex offenders as adults in our contemporary criminal justice system. 2. The cons and legal challenges associated with treating juvenile sex offenders as adults. 3. Some of the notable case laws and court decisions that have arisen in similar situations as well as the recommended course of action. Brief Answer Although many states currently have statutes that require juvenile sex offenders to be tried or sentenced in adult criminal justice systems, empirical research has clearly demonstrated the ineffectiveness of this legal approach and therefore it would be more appropriate to serve juvenile offenders in their own juvenile justice system as opposed to adult courts. For example, compared to adult sex offenders, juvenile offenders are statistically less likely reoffend and studies have shown most of first time offenders desist from sexual offenses after treatment and adjudication. Proponents however argue that punishing juvenile offenders in adult courts is deterrence for the next generation of juveniles. Statement of the Facts In most states the treatment of juvenile offenders is largely based on the assumption that the adult criminal system is likely to provide harsher and more proportional sentences to their crimes. In this regard, the argument is that the threat of a harsher punishment is itself a deterrent that will consequently lower juvenile sex crime rates. In the case Roper v. Simmons (1883), the Supreme Court ruled that the character of juveniles is more transitory and is not well formed as that of adults and therefore their punishments should never be the same. Although the deterrent effects of stricter laws may exist, evidence suggests that such deterrence is not only minimal but trying juvenile offenders in adult criminal courts may also actually contribute to higher cases of reoffending. Generally juveniles convicted in adult courts are more likely to be incarcerated and receive longer sentences compared to juvenile offenders that are referred to juvenile systems. Since the start of juvenile courts hundreds of years ago, there has been a vital assumption that juvenile sex-offenders should not be taken through the adult criminal courts. This is because juvenile courts were created for the juvenile offenders on the basis of their youth rather than the crime committed thus, the main purpose of the court were to provide guidance to the juvenile sex-offenders. Back in 1980s and 1990s, the public called for getting sturdy with juveniles and trying them as adults. Many states agreed to this law and passed it making it easier to try certain juvenile sex-offenders as adults, some states went ahead to considered eliminating the juvenile courts. On the contrary, research has shown the ineffectiveness of this approach and noted that juvenile sex-offenders would be more appropriately served in the juvenile system. This question has gained increasing importance with the passage of Megan’s Law.  Many have suggested this law as having significant impact on sex offenders’ life. Megan’s Law, a Sexual Offender’s Law Act of 1994, requires the convicted juvenile sex-offender to notify local law enforcement of any adjustments of address after being released from custody. The notification may be imposed for a period of time or permanently. Megan’s Law gives two major information services to the public: sex offender registration and community notification. Only twenty-eight states apply this law. It has been argued that the enforcement of Megan’s Law has resulted into more harm than good to the juvenile sex-offenders. Rehabilitation of the offenders is a key factor to their behavioral change as they are still youth and chances of changing behavior being high. Application of Megan’s Law has brought stigma and social isolation to the juveniles’ especially in school which is an important place for them to develop their social skills needed later in life. It has also lead to loneliness and ridicule by their classmates. Although juveniles can no longer be given the death sentence penalty under the American criminal justice system, grave offenders are still eligible for the life sentencing. Supporters of juvenile sex-offenders being treated in adult courts, center their arguments on the need to punish the offenders with a concern for juveniles’ rights. They argue that juvenile sex-offender’s court is founded on false basis as its purpose is to shield youths from the consequences of their own actions and not to punish them, that juvenile sex-offender’s courts fail to deter juvenile violence that is the existing juvenile crime problem requires that we punish juvenile sex- offenders in order to discourage the next generation of juveniles from becoming predators. Justice stresses that juvenile courts be done away with, this is because if juveniles are tried in adult courts, they will be afforded their full selection of constitutional rights making them no exemption to the law. Conversely, it has been argued that having juvenile being tested in adult courts will make them face the cruel reality of a prison background that ignores their unique needs. They are exposed to greater risks of sexual abuse and suicide, their chances of successfully starting over their life are also jeopardized as the scars of an adult criminal record and a prolonged exposure to harsh prison way of life stick with them. Justice friendliness calls for justice that enables youth to reject a criminal lifestyle this means, to drive juvenile sex-offenders away from criminal life, justice friendly programs that apply restorative justice to juvenile sex-offenders need to be applied. Recuperative justice holds greater promise than strict punishment; this is because it teaches them to face their actions and enables restoration and rehabilitation. Compared with juvenile committed to a juvenile sex-offender facility, those sentenced to serve their sentence in the adult system spend their formative years in a prison environment where there is twice as likely chance of being mistreated by staff, 50% likely to be attacked with a weapon and eight times more likely to commit suicide. The unjustly criminalized juvenile sex-offenders undergo psychological tremor especially if he/she was falsely accused. This leads to harsh treatment in prisons which can be carried to their future life. In my opinion juvenile sex-offenders should not be warehoused in adult prison system and life void of parole sentence should not be given to children either. Whether the offense is minor or serious, juvenile sex-offenders are entitled to being treated differently from adults due to their incomplete psychological development and their high potential to abandon criminal behavior and abide by the law. Works Cited Decker, Scott H. Controversies in Criminal Justice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print. Garfinkle, Elisabeth. Coming of age in America: The misapplication of sex-offender community notification laws to juveniles. California Law Review 163 (2003): 91-93. Print. Zimring, Franklin E. An American travesty: Legal responses to adolescent sexual offending, p. 66. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Print. Read More