Treating Juvenile Criminals as Adults - Research Paper Example

Treating Juvenile Criminals as Adults While the main purpose of the adult criminal justice system is to punish the criminal according to the level of his crime, the supposed aim of the juvenile justice system is to apply rehabilitation or mentoring to juvenile offenders in order to prevent further crimes and change their delinquent behavior. The core motivating principle of the juvenile system is rehabilitation. This is because juveniles are not fully mentally or physically developed; they cannot be accountable for their actions in the same way as adults. Additionally, many juvenile offenders come from broken homes or bad neighborhoods and many have been abused. They may need a second chance because many have not received even a first chance. In a few isolated cases this may be true, but by and large juvenile offenders should be treated as adults. They were willing to commit the crime, so they must be willing to do the time. This paper will examine why juveniles should be treated like adults in the criminal justice system. The justice system fulfills an important symbolic function by establishing standards of conduct. It formally defines right and wrong for citizens and frees them from the responsibility of taking vengeance, thus preventing the escalation of feuds within communities. The system protects the rights of free citizens by honoring the principle that individual freedom should not be denied without good reason. Rehabilitation has as its objective the return of offenders to the community as cured and viable members of society. However, for the most part, the rehabilitation efforts of the 1980s and 1990s were to a large extent unsuccessful. No program appeared to be any more effective in changing criminals than any other program, so a sizable portion of the people released from prison continue to return (Murphy 49). This has led many to conclude that the best and possibly only alternative is simply to remove offenders from the community, precluding any further vexation and exploitation by them. Since criminals are thought to be more likely to commit crimes than those never convicted of a criminal act, it follows that some benefits will be derived from incarcerating convicted criminals. Incapacitation has the greatest potential as a method of crime control if it is a few hardened criminals who commit most crimes. This is certainly true of juveniles too. Juveniles who commit crimes are clearly more likely to commit crimes than juveniles who do not. In fact, society now can mark this individuals and lock them up in order to protect society from harm (one of the key responsibilities of the state). The truth is that if criminally-minded juveniles can be identified early, they can be convicted, and incarcerated for long periods, a significant reduction in crime would be realized. Most advocates of punitive reform have this perspective on the criminal population. Blame for the majority of crimes committed is placed on a relatively few compulsive, predatory individuals thought to commit hundreds if not thousands of crimes each year (Newburn 54). The final goal behind the punitive reform movement is the reestablishment of retribution. Of all penal goals, retribution is the most moralistic. It contains an element of revenge because the victim deserves to be repaid with pain for the harm suffered. Justice is achieved when the punishment given the offender is equivalent to the harm accruing from the criminal act. Consequently, a social balance or equity is reestablished and maintained within society. But the rules are to some extent thrown out the window when it comes to juvenile offenders. These individuals are categorized differently and there is a separate legal system for them. This is unfortunate because they should be treated as adults. By the federal standards, any juvenile under the age of 18 who committed a crime is a subject for juvenile delinquency, which can be considered as a crime if he/she was 18 or older (Rashid, 2004). This is a decision we have taken as a society. We believe that there are serious and important differences between adults and juveniles, and that a one-size fits all approach is not desirable and will not make the situation better. Juveniles are more malleable and easy to influence. It is largely believed that the criminal actions of juveniles might be influenced by such external forces as parental neglect, inappropriate living conditions or relations inside the family. Because of these facts, rehabilitation is an attractive option in dealing with juveniles. However, it is not the correct one. Most of these juvenile criminals will grow up to be adult criminals. If we want to stop this we must take action early on. For some juvenile offenders it might be appropriate to use rehabilitation, but only in conjunction with detention and harder measures. It may be appropriate to combine a softer approach with detention in a juvenile center or to take similar action. The carrot and the stick is again a key analogy. Preventive detention applied to young offenders has been debated for many years. Its proponents argue that it would prevent crime by incapacitating those likely to re-offend (Russel 85). Its opponents claim that it is fundamentally unfair because it allows a judge to make a decision about a person's future behavior. Since no one can accurately predict behavior, particularly criminality, the chances of mistakes are high (Maruna and Ward 83). That is what is said. However, it is not that hard to predict behaviour. A large majority of adult criminals were once juvenile criminals. There is a clear connection which we must take into account when designing this public policy. When using this mixed approach, and treating juveniles as adults, the form of sentencing most often used was the indeterminate sentence. Legislatures set wide ranges for sentencing, and judges meted out minimums and maximums that also had a wide range. This allowed correctional personnel the discretion of releasing offenders when or if they were reformed. No one, other than correctional authorities, particularly cared for this system. Inmates did not like it because their release depended on the whims of the parole board and because offenders never knew exactly when they would be released (Russel 61). Judges and the public did not like it because the term served never resembled the actual sentence given and was almost always shorter. However, this system can be effective if it is made more harsh and properly treats juveniles as adults. Indeed, many juvenile laws stipulate that a young criminal can be “waived” to the adult court for serious crime. Each year, about 12,000 juveniles are “waived” (Federal Bureau of Investigation). The “waiver” is practiced in all states except Nebraska, New York, and New Mexico. The cases when “waiver” is applied include murders or intentional killing of several people. After careful examination of a case, the judge decides whether the young criminal should be tried as a juvenile or an adult. New laws specifying set lengths of sentences for particular juvenile offenses allow modifications of the time served based on the specific circumstances associated with a given incident (Russel 66). In some cases, if a youth offender gets sentenced to 5 years, but he is 15 at the time, he does not transferred to the prison with adults. The law states that a young offender should be imprisoned in a special jail with other young offenders under 18 years old (Murphy 88). These are key policies. While some juvenile offenders are worthy of rehabilitation, we as a society also state that some are not. They are criminals of all ages who should be locked up due to the heinous nature of their crimes. To say the best way to deal with juveniles is to rehabilitate them is not to say that this approach is perfect or will work in absolutely every case. It is simply the best choice considering the issues at hand. Another positive step states have taken recently is the restriction of the opportunity for probation and parole which often accompanies new sentencing legislation. Many states made it more difficult to be placed on probation for certain offenses and impossible for certain serious ones. Parole, which is the conditional early release from prison under supervision in the community, has also been restricted in many states. In theory, a return to determinacy and the abandonment of rehabilitation eliminates the need for parole, which was designed to help the offender prepare to reenter the community (Murphy 71). Yet parole serves another important function of controlling inmates in prison and is one of the few rewards that can be manipulated. For this reason, most states have retained it. Still, the administration of parole has been modified so that the parole date is determined by the sentence rather than by the paroling authority. Good time--receiving extra credit for time served while maintaining good behavior in prison--is another major form of reward used in prison to control inmates. Because it reduces the total amount of time an individual will serve and modifies the original sentence, several states have considered eliminating it. However, heavy lobbying against the legislation by correctional personnel has prevented its elimination (Maruna and Ward 55). Parole should definitely be eliminated for juveniles who have committed significant crimes. Many young people who break the law come from broken homes or abusive families, but that does not excuse their actions or atone for the damage they have done to other peoples lives. Those who commit the most serious crimes should be punished the same way we punish adults. We should not take it easy on them just because they are a bit younger. Works Consulted Maruna, Sh., Ward, T. Rehabilitation (Key Ideas in Criminology). Routledge; New Ed edition, 2006. Morris, Allison, et al. Restorative justice for juveniles: conferencing, mediation and circles. Hart Publishing, 2001. Murphy, J. G. Punishment and Rehabilitation. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999. Newburn, T. Criminology. Willan Publishing, 2007. Roberts, Albert. Juvenile Justice Sourcebook: Past, Present, and Future. Oxford University Press US, 2004. Russel, C. Alternatives to Prison: Rehabilitation and Other Programs (Incarceration Issues: Punishment, Reform, and Rehabilitation). Mason Crest Publishers; Library Binding edition, 2006. Vedder, C. B. The Juvenile Offender: Perspective and Readings. Random House, 2002. Read More