Juvenile Delinquency in the USA - Research Paper Example

The rise of juvenile crime all across the United States has profoundly affected even ordinary Americans. As headlines on daily newspapers, for instance, would include pictures and stories of young offenders in conflict with the law in an almost inoffensive air of apathy, the dilemma faced by the nation with regards youth offenders has become too prosaic and commonplace. Added to that are the expectations of the public that crime instances done by young offenders will continue to increase anyway no matter what actions and prevention methods the public and the society as a whole try to carry out in order to thwart the prevalence of offenses and criminality. These prospects have their foundations on the forecast of the U.S. Census Bureau which projects that the crimes committed by the young, aged 15-17 – the age group responsible for 30 percent of the offenses incurred by the juveniles – will increase 20 percent by this year (2007) (Ferro 2003). What is worse, the Office of Juvenile Justice reported that the juvenile offenders or children in conflict with the law, who have been relocated into the adult criminal justice system, have escalated in number. In addition, near the turn of the previous century, 40 states including the District of Columbia passed legislations, which eased legal constraints in trying juveniles as adults in their respective jurisdictions (Griffin et al. 1998). In order for us to understand why this occurrence cause alarm on the public and the on our justice system, we have to fully comprehend the underlying principles with regards trying juvenile offenders in adult courts which employ adult criminal laws and statutes. Likewise, it is necessary to understand the legal principles that govern young offenders and when these juveniles should not be tried as adults. All states in the United States of America including the District of Columbia permit adult criminal prosecution of juveniles under definite conditions. Under the waiver provisions for instance, decisions of the transfer of the offender from a juvenile institution to an adult court or adult criminal institution is left to the State’s juvenile courts, but clearly provides that young offenders may not be prosecuted as adult criminals unless a juvenile court judge has ordered the transfer (Griffin et al. 1998). The provisions vary from one another in the extent of flexibility with which the conditions allow the courts. However, under these provisions, a case against a juvenile must at least originate in juvenile court and cannot be directed anywhere else, unless there is a formal approval from juvenile court judge. In the Direct File provisions, the prosecutor determines whether to commence a case against a young offender in juvenile court or in criminal (adult) court. In Statutory Exclusion, criminal courts are bestowed jurisdiction on the classes and levels of cases involving juveniles. Under this provision, a State legislature fundamentally predetermines the question of criminal prosecution and carries out the decision, bypassing the authority of the prosecutor and the court (Roberts 2004 & Griffins 1998). Nevertheless, these provisions are bestowed to juvenile offenders under specific conditions. Most states in the US contend that the prosecution of the young offenders in adult criminal courts is a legislative remedy and a response to the growing violent offenses, but a surprising numbers of laws in many states in the country authorize criminal trial even for non-violent offenses. Presently, 21 states permit adult prosecution of juveniles charged of offenses related to property as, for instance, arson and burglary while 19 states afforded provisions in their statutes authorizing prosecution of young people in conflict with the law - whose offenses are drug related - in adult court. Forty-six of the 50 states in this country permit issuance of waiver for variety of offenses including personal, property, violent and non-violent (Ferro 2003). The most surprising of all is that, many states oblige or permit prosecution of juveniles as adults for simple misdemeanors, mere violations of ordinances, and summary statute violations such as illegal fishing and other related game violations (Griffin et al. 1998). Furthermore, the minimum age provisions for young offenders which would allow transfer to adult courts is sometime unspecified in some states while it is also significant to note that other laws in many states contain vague provisions. Laws in twenty-three States provide for the transfer of juveniles to criminal court for which minimum age is not specified. In other states, statutes may indicate the minimum age for juvenile court jurisdiction. Age is important in this subject, as it is the basis of decision of courts when and if a criminal tribunal can admit jurisdiction of such juvenile. Another category in which states in the US utilize to try young offender in adult courts is a special category created in 31 states in the country. This stipulation termed as ‘once an adult, always an adult’ allows for the prosecution of a juvenile in an adult court if the juvenile is once convicted in adult court. Most states in the country oblige that, following a juvenile’s conviction as an adult, all succeeding criminal offenses be prosecuted in adult criminal court (Griffin et al. 1998). It is therefore considerable to note that the United States, a country said to be the most democratic, founded on liberal ideas of equality and justice, based on the aforementioned stipulations of its justice system, violates its own ideals of justice. In his book ‘Boys among Men,’ the author David Myers (2005) questions whether sending children to adult courts or prisons or being tried in adult courts effectively deters young offender from doing any more crimes and offenses. In his book, Myers furthermore gives careful analysis of the history and the development of the transfer laws - laws that provide the transfer of young people to adult facilities for trial. Myers contends that this system is very prevalent in the country and further asserts that the passing of the legislations, which specified provisions on transfer of juvenile, or the prosecution of young offenders in adult courts, coincided with the rise of violent crime committed by juvenile offenders (Myers 2005). As these policies have expanded, the system by which juveniles are formally treated as adults has also transformed. Thus, it is necessary for policymakers to analyze the efficiency of this legislations and their effect on the young offenders or the society as a whole. Myers concludes that the strengthening of the view and the legal principles, which provide for the segregation between juvenile justice and adult justice systems deeming them distinct, the need for moving and transfer youth offenders to adult courts will become more prevalent. The author asserts that greater resource for prevention and intervention should work better in curbing juvenile delinquency and criminality (Myers 2005). Gary Katzmann has put forward parallel contentions as Myers. Katzmann advocates that the more we represent young offenders in delinquency proceedings in juvenile court and juveniles who have been moved to criminal court to undergo trial as adults, the more we distinguish the intricacy of the pressures and forces which bring juveniles and even worse, young children into our justice system. He further asserts that the legal experts who represent and indict the children, and the judges who supervise and preside over these crime and offenses, only highlight the consequences of our society’s and our justice system’s failures to effect early intervention and to recognize and execute successful approach that might have curbed and thwarted the altercation with our juvenile justice and criminal justice systems (Katzmann 2002). For Katzmann, the author of the book, ‘Securing Our Children's Future: New Approaches to Juvenile Justice and Youth Violence’, there are two basic questions lawyers and policymakers and even the society as a whole must ask: “(1) How do we identify, implement, and improve programs designed to prevent delinquency? (2) When prevention has failed, how should communities, juvenile courts, probation, and corrections address the consequences” (Katzmann 200)? The author furthermore suggests that various players related to juvenile crime and offenses should cooperate, coordinate and support the work of others in order to shed light on the issue. He likewise explicitly asserts that even though the best efforts of those whose work is related to juvenile justice, which aims to generate prospects for inter-institutional, inter-agency, and interdisciplinary partnerships, much more could be done to encourage tangible implementation of schemes and policies which have group effort and cooperation as their ultimate goals (Katzmann 2002). In his book’s introduction, Katzmann asserts that we need to “examine, in practical terms, how institutions can be mobilized in the service of initiatives to combat youth violence” and adds that his book is an “attempt to identify promising strategies to confront the challenges of youth violence and to facilitate communication and sharing of perspectives” among professionals and groups both public and private entities so as to effectively “develop and implement [efficient] strategies” (Katzmann 2002). The prosecution of children (defined by UNICEF as persons from the age of 1 to 17) as adults in the United States of America only implies that the country’s laws and justice system with regards juvenile delinquency is also ‘juvenile’ or worse ‘infantile’ in nature. Added to that, the United States’ refusal to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly exhibits the shortsightedness of American legislations in this issue. According to the UN report, only the US and Somalia out of 193 member countries refuse to ratify the convention. The treaty on child rights as drafted by the United Nations met strong oppositions from the conservatives in the US Congress under the Bush administration. President Bush himself opposed the signing and ratification of the convention as he contends that, 1"The Convention on the Rights of the Child may be a positive tool for promoting child welfare for those countries that have adopted it. But we believe the text goes too far when it asserts entitlements based on economic, social and cultural rights. ... The human rights-based approach ... poses significant problems as used in this text." This statement is considered juvenile in itself as the convention emphasizes and promotes liberal, just and humane treatment of children. One provision, for instance, in which the US legislators disagreed upon, states that, 2“No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest,detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;” (emphasis/highlight mine) Clearly, this provision, if the US decided to be a party to the Convention, will completely require overhauling of the existing laws on juvenile delinquency in every state all over America as laws and statutes in majority of the states in the US do not conform to the provisions in the treaty. All in all, the juvenile justice system in which young offenders are easily transferred to adult courts for prosecution, raise both legal and moral issues, as well as elevate the issue with regards effective justice system for young offenders. The situation in this country is a cause for alarm since the concept of justice is not to punish but to rehabilitate. The transfer of young offenders to adult institutions and courts in which they will undergo trials as adults rather than as children raises doubts on America’s system of rehabilitative justice. The stipulations, laws and provisions stated in majority of the state laws allow for retribution and not rehabilitation of offenders. If the justice system for adult criminals asserts that offenders must be allowed to reform in order to serve well their societies and communities, why is it so punitive in the case of the young juvenile delinquents? This is a clear violation of justice and equality enshrined in America’s constitution. Legislators in every state all over America must therefore analyze the existing laws and justice system applied to young offenders and only through that, America can be deemed the greatest democratic country in the world. WORKS CITED Anderson, M.J. (2001,0201). Bush team signals new U.N. direction. Retrieved February 4, 2007, from World Net Daily Web site: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21590 Ferro, Jeffery (2003). Juvenile Crime. New York, NY: Facts On File, Inc. Griffin, P. et al. (1998). Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court: An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions, National Center for Juvenile Justice Report, December 1998 Katzmann, Gary (2002). Securing Our Childern's Future. Washington D.C.: The Booking Institution. Myers, David (2005). Boys among Men. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Roberts, Albert (2004). Juvenile Justice Source Book. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc. UNCHR, (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved February 4, 2007, from Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Web site: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm Read More