Juvenile Delinquents and the Adult Criminal Justice System - Literature review Example

I. Introduction It is absolutely alarming for people to know that criminal acts nowadays are not merely committed by adults but also by younger people. A number of concerns prove to be a dilemma to a society’s framework of the character and path of human growth and justice as much as critical is juveniles committing brutal crimes. Since people do not anticipate young people to become offenders, the unpredicted interaction between juveniles and criminal behaviors establishes a problem that majority would discover complicated to determine. Perhaps, the only means available to pull through from this predicament is either to reconstruct the wrongdoing as something not that overcritical as a crime or to reconstruct the wrongdoer as an individual who is not actually a juvenile (Steinberg, 2001). For the previous century, the American society has primarily favored the first model. It has It has reconstructed juvenile transgressions through considering majority of them as antisocial acts to be investigated within a distinct juvenile justice system which is supposedly established to understand the individual demands and adolescent standing of the juveniles and push for psychotherapy instead of harsh punishment. Two leading assumptions regarding juveniles have dominated; primarily, that young people have various capabilities and skills compared to grown ups, hence, should be investigated in a unique approach; and, that they possess various prospects for modification than do adults, thus, warrant a second opportunity and an effort at rehabilitation. Individual states have acknowledged that sole behavior, specifically, the suspected felony, should not through itself identify whether to appeal to the harsh realities of the criminal justice system designed for adult wrongdoers (ibid, 34). In the contemporary period, however, there has been a remarkable transition in the manner juvenile crime is perceived by policymakers and the larger society, one that has resulted in to prevalent reforms in policies and traditions regarding the handling of juvenile criminals. Apart from preferring to construct wrongdoing committed by young people as antisocial, society growingly is rethinking to reconstruct them as grown ups and reassign them to the adult court and criminal justice system. There is advocacy for and against the death penalty for juveniles. Traditionalists also assume that juveniles who commit brutal crimes deserve to be killed. Several adversaries believe that death penalty for young offenders are improper for a sophisticated society such as the United States. Furthermore, several who are against the death penalty assume that rehabilitation should be the emphasis since the juvenile offenders are still immature and still within the determining years of their lives (Steinberg, 2001, 35). II. Juvenile Delinquents and the Adult Criminal Justice System There are both positive and negative effects building up to juvenile offenders, relying upon the course chosen. If they choose to stay in juvenile court or fight the waiver to criminal court, they do not essentially enjoy the complete array of privileges and rights and constitutional assurances related with adult processing in criminal justice system. The proceeding carries on to be a common one, and if these young people reach the age of majority, their court documents are either held back or deleted, hence successfully cutting off their previous wrongdoings. If the transfer is unchallenged, they are admitted to an adult criminal court wherein their own behavior may be diverse, low-threat crime (Jenson & Howard, 1998). Judges may even consider their immaturity or youthfulness as alleviating factor and these juveniles may be condemned to probation, have their cases discharged, or have their sentences deferred. Probably the harshest sanction criminal courts can enforce is the death penalty. The death penalty cannot be enforced by any juvenile court judge in the United States. In order for this utmost punishment to be ordered, the juvenile should be convicted of a capital crime, and the conviction must take place in a state where the death penalty is relevant. For juveniles under age sixteen and seventeen who are indicted with grave crimes there is a great possibility they will be transferred to criminal court jurisdictions by juvenile courts. In several states such as New York and Illinois, necessary transfers take place for particular types of grave offenses. Juveniles may defy these transfers or waivers, even though there are both positive and negative effects related with such challenges (Stanko et al., 2004). Remaining in juvenile court implies that any and all documents concerning delinquency arbitration will be closed when juveniles reach the age of majority, which is age of eighteen in several states and twenty-one in some. Juvenile courts are common proceedings; hence, it is improbable for juveniles to obtain criminal documents if they are done in these courts. Nevertheless, being handled as juveniles implies that they do not enjoy the complete array of constitutional privileges and assurances accessible in adult criminal courts. Yet juvenile courts are conventionally known for their leniency. Even cases of extreme crimes, particular delinquent offenders are repeatedly placed on probation rather than incarcerated. Juvenile correctional facilities are often congested, as are their adult penitentiary and detention center counterparts. Moreover, having one’s case tried in juvenile courts enlarges greatly the range of treatment alternatives and community-based services accessible to juveniles (Eisenman, 1994). In criminal courts, nevertheless, juveniles are broadened the complete array of rights accessible to adults. Yet in such courts, convictions indicate criminal records. One benefit for juveniles is that they could appeal for and receive a trial by jury, given their potential punishment includes imprisonment of six months or longer. In majority of juvenile courts, they are not privileged with such jury trial alternative, apart from judicial approval. Jury trials are considered by several experts as beneficial to juveniles, because jury members consider one’s immaturity and youthfulness as an alleviating factor. Moreover, when juveniles come out before judges in criminal courts, their misdeeds do not appear to be as grave as they were considered to be by juvenile judges (Stanko et al., 2004). Rather, numerous adult criminals are charged with similar offense. Jam-packed court dockets and overburdened prosecutors frequently mean discharges of cases, petition bargaining leading to probation, and slight, if any, difficult time in prison. The juvenile’s immaturity also functions as alleviating factor. Lots of juveniles are conscious of this and take advantage of the system by not challenging waivers in juvenile court. Normally, their staying power is rewarded through distraction, probation, or case discharge (ibid, 72). A major threat building up to juveniles charged of capital offense, nevertheless, is that the death penalty could be imposed. While it is merely rarely imposed on juveniles commonly, it however turns out to be an alternative, specifically if the juvenile was under the age of sixteen or older when the immediate capital crime was charged. The death penalty has created much controversy. Its advocates assume it to be merely being a punishment, retributive, a crime extinguisher, and a mechanism of crime regulation through extermination. Its adversaries consider it as uncivilized, fulfilling no valuable purpose, and transgressing one’s constitutional right to prevent harsh and odd punishment (Clendenen & Beaser, 2009). The concern remains unresolved. III. Conclusion Whether juveniles should be executed, and the appropriate age at which they can be put to death penalty has been dealt by the U.S. Supreme Court. In quite a few comprehensive verdicts during the 1980s, the Supreme Court in due course decided on a minimum age of sixteen, in which the death penalty may be relevant. Hence, any young person who was under sixteen or older during the crime becomes entitled to the death penalty in those states which impose death penalty as a punishment. Public opinion is divided regarding this concern, as are policymakers. In the contemporary period, the juvenile justice system is embattled for several changes, involving a new sentencing system, higher homogeneity in the laws of multiple jurisdictions, and a more reliable framework of what comprises delinquent behavior. Both public and political outlook appear to prefer the maintenance of juvenile courts, but with evaluated liability through better employment of compensation, community service, and restricted use of incarceration. Provided with information regarding the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult criminal court, it is safe to assume that these juvenile offenders still obtain substantial considerations from the criminal justice system because of their youthfulness or immaturity. It is quite appropriate to specify or set a certain age bracket wherein a juvenile offender can be tried in court as an adult and can be sentenced to the death penalty for a capital crime committed. There are particular factors that should be considered in handling juvenile delinquents and these factors can go far beyond the scope of academic disciplines. Hence, the debate if juvenile offenders should be tried as adult in criminal courts or should be sentenced to death for capital offense is still ongoing. References Clendenen, R. & Beaser, H. (accessed in Jan 21, 2009). The Shame of America. The Post Reports on Juvenile Delinquency , 32-73. Eisenman, R. (1994). Society Confronts Hard-Core Youthful Offender. USA Today Magazine , 27. Jenson, J. & Howard, M. (1998). Youth Crime, Public Policy & Practice in the Juvenile Justice System: Recent Trends and Needed Reforms. National Association of Social Workers, Inc. , 324-334. Stanko, S. et al. (2004). Living in Prison: A History of the Correctional System with an Insiders View. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Steinberg, L. (2001). Should Juvenile Offenders Be Tried as Adults? Law & Justice , 34-35. Read More