Category: Juvenile Crime

Failure Of The Criminal Law To Fairly And Effectively Address Juvenile Crime

Introduction

This essay will present and analyze a variety of academic sources to oppose the statement that criminal law is fair and effective in addressing crime, punishing offenders, and maintaining social cohesion. The focus group of this essay will be juvenile offenders, which in Queensland means an offender between the ages of 10 and 16 (Richards, 2011). According to the rule of law, all defendants should be treated with the presumption of innocence, which is not often met when juveniles are involved. This leads to the violation of the right to a fair trial, an element of due process. Overall, this lack of equal treatment of juvenile offenders leads to increased contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) as well as high recidivism rates, and hence, failure to rehabilitate them back into the community.

The rule of law refers to the concept that all people are equal in the eyes of the law and that every man, whatever his rank or condition, is bound by the law (White & Perrone, 1997; Bingham, 2010). One aspect of the rule of law is the presumption of innocence, which is rarely upheld in the case of juvenile offenders.

Offenders aged 15-19 are the most likely age group to be processed by police, due to their neurobiology and their tendency to commit crimes that are public and unplanned (Richards, 2011; Riddhi & Bartels, 2018). Hence, juveniles are commonly considered a vulnerable group simply due to their age; however, many juveniles have additional forms of vulnerability that can disadvantage them during interactions with police. These vulnerabilities can be innate, such as intellectual disabilities, sexuality, or race, or can be caused by individual circumstances, such as homelessness (Dwyer, 2017).

Historically, police have specifically targeted young people in an attempt to control ‘larrikinism’, which generally refers to obscene language and offensive behavior (Finnane, 1987). Due to this discriminatory policing, young people are often subject to excessive and invasive searches, name and address checks, and move-on orders (Cunneen, Goldson, & Russell, 2016). Move-on orders, which allow police to effect the removal of any person from a public space, are often used even when there is no indication of a breach of peace occurring (Farrell, 2009). In accordance with the rule of law, innocence should be presumed, and hence, police should not be able to exercise this discretionary power over vulnerable young people who have displayed no intentions to commit a crime.

Additionally, paperless arrest laws in Queensland allow police to arrest and detain a person for up to four hours for committing, or being about to commit, a minor offense, such as loitering (Cunneen et al., 2016). This detainment without charge is one clear example of a violation of the presumption of innocence. According to Cunneen et al. (2016), it also puts young people at the risk of arbitrary detention. A similar example is the introduction of alcohol prohibition orders, which are often imposed on juveniles by police without judicial oversight, denying the recipient the chance to conduct a defense (Cunneen et al., 2016).

As shown, the current legislation in Queensland gives police power to target and discriminate against juvenile offenders. Move-on orders, paperless arrest laws, and alcohol prohibition orders are just some of the avenues for police to unfairly apprehend young people, unnecessarily bringing them into contact with the CJS. In all these cases, the rule of law is not applied fairly as the presumption of innocence is not upheld.

The breach of the rule of law in regard to the presumption of innocence eliminates the chance for juvenile offenders to exercise their right to a fair trial. The right to a fair trial is defined as an individual’s right to “have their case heard by a competent and impartial court following a fair and public hearing” (Burnnard, 2008, p.176).

According to Finnane (1987), when a police officer apprehends a juvenile delinquent for a public order offense, chances of successful prosecution of charges are high. Additionally, these chances increase when a magistrate is “in sympathy with a local law and order campaign” (Finnane, 1987, p.95). This is a clear violation of the right to a fair trial, as the magistrate does not administer the law fairly or equally. Additionally, most young people apprehended by police will be convicted, even though it has already been proven that the power of police allows them to target and discriminate against these young people.

Yet another violation of the right to a fair trial is seen in the failure to adapt the court processes to the needs of juvenile offenders by not treating them in an age-appropriate manner. Most young people have difficulty understanding legal proceedings, likely due to the use of complex legal jargon (Burnnard, 2008). This comprehension can be further hindered by limited English proficiency, poor education, fear or anxiety, and mental health disorders or cognitive disabilities (Cunneen et al., 2016). Juvenile offenders have the right to fully participate in legal proceedings, so the only way they can receive a fair trial is if the proceedings are explained plainly and simply and if the trial is conducted in a language understandable to the defendant (Burnnard, 2008).

Additionally, according to Watt, O’Leary, and O’Toole (2017), a fair trial cannot be delivered if the offender themselves is not fit to stand trial. Compared to adults, children under the age of 16 are consistently much more likely to be evaluated as impaired in competence-related abilities, yet many of them are trialed anyway (Watt et al., 2017). This is unfair treatment on behalf of the court, and, in addition to the other evidence presented, clearly shows that juvenile offenders are often deprived of a fair trial.

One of the purposes of criminal law is to rehabilitate offenders back into the community. However, the unequal application of the rule of law and the violation of the right to a fair trial causes more juveniles to come into contact with the CJS than necessary. This has the potential to further marginalize young people, leading them to re-offend (Corr, 2014). According to the Australia Bureau of Statistics (2019), there were 54,064 youth offenders recorded by police between 2016 and 2017, constituting 13% of the total offender population.

Despite rehabilitation programs that are offered by juvenile detention centers, such as social integration programs and substance abuse counseling, 41% of juvenile offenders of a sample of 1500 reoffended, a statistic which rises to 61% for those who had previously been on supervised orders (Day, Howells, & Rickwood, 2004). The reason for this, according to Corr (2014), is that once an individual obtains a criminal record by coming into contact with the CJS, they become ‘resigned’ to an offending lifestyle, seeing resistance as futile. This can be attributed to Becker’s labeling theory, which states that people construct their identities from society’s perceptions of them (Shulman, 2005). Therefore, current rehabilitation programs in detention centers are not efficient in lowering recidivism rates, and the only solution is to divert young people from the CJS in the first place.

Diversion strategies, including community service work, treatment programs, or educational programs, generally result in less reoffending rates than traditional juvenile detention (Wilson & Hoge, 2013). As police are usually the first responders to juvenile crime, they are considered the gatekeepers who determine who enters the CJS and how (Dwyer, 2014: Cunneen et al., 2016). However, they are likely not the most qualified people to deal with vulnerable young people. Police should specifically be trained to deal with juvenile offenders and to recognize youthful vulnerabilities, such as intellectual disorders so that they will be able to refer young people to other services to aid in their diversion from the CJS (Dwyer, 2017). Another option is raising the age of criminal responsibility in Queensland from 10-years-old to 14-years-old, to reduce the likelihood of life-course interaction with the CJS (Cunneen et al., 2016; Riddhi & Bartels, 2018).

In conclusion, it has been evidenced that the rule of law is not applied equally to all, as juvenile offenders are often treated unfairly and processed without the presumption of innocence. Additionally, the due process right of a right to a fair trial is not often met. These both make it difficult for criminal law to successfully fulfill its purpose of rehabilitating juveniles and diverting them from a life of crime. Overall, this shows that criminal law is neither fair nor effective in addressing crime, punishing offenders, and maintaining social cohesion.

References

1. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). Youth Offenders, 2016-17. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4519.0~2016-17~Main%20Features~Youth%20Offenders~4
2. Bingham, T. (2010). The rule of law. London: Allen Lane.
3. Burnnard, A. (2008). The right to a fair trial: Young offenders and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20(2), 173-188. https://search-informit-com-au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=20090835;res=AGISPT
4. Corr, M. (2014). Young people’s offending careers and criminal justice contact: a case for social justice. Youth Justice, 14(3), 255-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1473225414549695
5. Cunneen, C., Goldson, B., & Russell, S. (2016). Juvenile justice, young people and human rights in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28(2), 173-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2016.12036067
6. Day, A., Howells, K., & Rickwood, D. (2004). Current trends in the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 2004(284), 1-6. https://search-proquest-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/189464510/fulltext/64CDB4C56D0E44A9PQ/1?accountid=13380
7. Dwyer, A. (2017). Embodying youthful vulnerabilities and policing public spaces. In N. Asquith, I. Bartkowiak-Theron, & K. Roberts (Eds.), Policing encounters with vulnerability (pp. 47-69). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan
8. Farrell, J. (2009). All the right moves? Police ‘move-on powers in Victoria. Alternative Law Journal, 34(1), 21-26. https://search-informit-com-au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=20092788;res=AGISPT

Juvenile Crime In South Africa, The United States And China

Abstract

“Crime and bad lives are the measures of a State’s failure, all crime, in the end, is the crime of the community”, H.G. Wells. In today’s society, juvenile delinquency is at an all-time high. Juvenile delinquency refers to antisocial and criminal behavior committed by a person under the age of 18. A juvenile is an underage person who commits a crime that is based on their behavior. The behavior of the juvenile is often wild, rough, and careless. Being that they are young, juveniles do not receive the same punishment as their adult counterparts. Juvenile commit crimes due to a lack of parental control and influences from their environment. Juvenile crimes and classified into two categories: status and delinquent offenses. Status offenses include smoking or using tobacco, drinking or possessing alcohol, running away from home, truancy, and curfew. Delinquent offenses are violations of legal statutes that would apply to adults. These offenses include rape, murder, armed robbery, aggravated and simple assault, burglary, theft, arson, criminal mischief, and others. This paper describes the effects parental involvement, educational and mental health services have on juveniles who enter the correctional system. A comparison of China, South Africa, and the United States juvenile justice systems is discussed and what programs are offered in the respective countries, and if they are effective.

Introduction

A major challenge for correctional programs is that rehabilitation and educational services may not be a priority. Most legal systems have specific procedures for dealing with juveniles, such as juvenile detention centers and courts. Regarding juvenile court, the purpose is to rehabilitate the juveniles. Instead of punishing youth, the juvenile court is designed to provide social and mental health services along with educational services. It is designed for youth under the premise that young people have a better chance at rehabilitation. Although the system may be helping juveniles, it is highly questionable whether the detainment of young people and the programs offered helps rehabilitate them. The active involvement of parents during the youth’s experience with the juvenile justice system is also a crucial aspect. When parents are involved and are aware of the issues the youth may be facing, youth have a better chance of leaving detention and becoming productive members of society. Youth who are released from incarceration are extremely vulnerable to patterns of recidivism due to lack of family support, poverty, and victimization. Implementation of more educational programs and treatment services will benefit youth and reduce juvenile recidivism.

China

Juvenile delinquency is one of the most serious social issues in Hong Kong (Heng, p. 50). Mao Zeng compared deviant behavior to an illness and emphasized a rehabilitative approach (Terrill, p. 558). In China, juvenile delinquents are classified as people from age 14 to 25 and juvenile criminals, age 18 to 25 (Terrill, p. 561). In 1998, the Rehabilitation Division was created and formulated strategies for the long-term development of rehabilitation services for juveniles. These programs helped juveniles improve their interpersonal skills and restore self-confidence through acquiring skills to secure jobs. The Rehabilitation Division is comprised of five units:

1. Rehabilitation Unit (Assessment and Program);
2. Education Unit;
3. Vocational Training Unit;
4. Psychological Services Section;
5. Rehabilitation Unit (Supervision).

In the Education Unit, Hong Kong has adopted a mainstream education approach by using the Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau’s (EMB) special school model to set up programs. Remedial classes are also offered to help juveniles with learning disabilities. Vocational training has a variety of technical and business courses that juveniles can participate in. Psychological services are provided for juveniles to help them improve their general mental health and adjust to being incarcerated. The Offending Behavior Program, (OBP), helps juveniles develop pro-social values and attitudes and acquire appropriate social skills to replace offending behavior. There are also programs for drug addicts and juveniles can undergo treatment for two to 12 months. The program focuses on discipline and outdoor activity. Families are encouraged to participate in the program Inmate-Parent. In this program, families can talk and learn how to become more involved in their children’s rehabilitation process (Heng, p. 54). During the rehabilitation process, staff members work with the juvenile and their families for successful reentry into the community. Some juveniles may be placed in halfway houses and may leave on weekends or holidays to facilitate the juvenile’s social reintegration. China also implements informal strategies to reduce the number of juveniles being sent to juvenile correctional facilities. One of the strategies is bang-jiao. Bang-jiao is used to prevent delinquent behavior. The goal is to assist and guide a juvenile and their family to prevent the juvenile from committing future crimes (Terrill, p. 562).

South Africa

A juvenile is defined as anyone under the age of 18. Rights for juveniles include access to social services, protection from neglect and abuse, alternative care when removed from the family, access to legal counsel, and not to be detained unless it is the last resort (Terrill, p. 351). Due to the high prevalence of violence, juveniles are at risk of becoming a victim or perpetrator. Regarding reducing juvenile recidivism, attention on the family, schools, and community needs to be addressed. The family is a source of violence especially for young boys who experience physical abuse. Children are also exposed to gang violence and become involved by the age of 11. Alcohol and drug usage in the family are abused in the family and some children may have issues related to fetal alcohol syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder due to maternal prenatal use of tobacco, cocaine, and methamphetamines (Terrill, p. 356). According to Ntshangase, risk factors within society that have the likelihood of leading to juvenile delinquency, are family structure, poverty, the economy, population growth, and racism (p. 15). The juvenile justice system in South Africa uses diversion as a component in reducing juvenile recidivism. Diversion programs for juveniles include; life‐skills, peer/youth mentoring, wilderness therapy, skills training/educational or entrepreneurship programs, therapeutic programs, oral/written apologies, community service or multi‐modal programs, victim-offender mediation, and family group counseling (Cooper, p. 69-70).

United States

Juvenile criminal activity continues to be a problem in the United States and causes a financial burden to society and an impact on quality of life. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that juvenile offenders accounted for 15% of violent and 30% of property crime in 2002 (Tennyson, p. 1). In order to reduce juvenile recidivism, intervention programs such as individual therapy, family therapy, parent training, group treatment, drug treatment, restitution, correctional programs, and multisystemic therapies. Parent training is a therapeutic technique designed to impact parental discipline styles. Inconsistent parenting, harsh discipline, inadequate supervision, and poor boundaries are all risk factors related to juvenile delinquency. Parent-training programs are aimed at assisting parents how to positively reinforce adolescents’ prosocial behavior (Tennyson, p. 8). Interventions in addressing parental skills have a direct impact on reducing juvenile recidivism. Behavior Modification and Cognitive Based treatments have also resulted in reduced juvenile recidivism. Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, & Yee, conducted a study that showed a 30% reduction rate in recidivism over untreated groups. The results also showed that cognitive-behavioral therapy programs were more effective in reducing recidivism than behavioral programs (Tennyson, p. 10). Family therapy interventions are aimed at influencing familial dynamics as a means of addressing criminal behavior in adolescents. Studies have shown that having a delinquent sibling increases the likelihood of being convicted for a violent offense. Adolescents who experience abuse, neglect, and harsh parental discipline also increases the likelihood of criminal behavior. Functional Family Therapy includes concepts based on systems theory and attempts to decrease negative behavior. Brief strategic family therapy focuses on improving relationships within the youth’s family. One-person family therapy is based on the idea that a change in one family member will lead to corresponding changes in other family members and aims to modify behavior. Multisystemic therapy (MST) is aimed at decreasing delinquent behavior in youth through both community and home-based interventions. MST targets the youth as well as their family, peer group, school, and community (Tennyson, pp. 11-13). The New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) along with the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) have developed a mental health unit model for juveniles at the Highland Residential Center. The unit is designed to meet the needs of youth who have chronic and serious emotional disturbances (Johnson, p. 116). Substance abuse services are also offered. The most effective prevention model includes treatment services, prevention education, cognitive restructuring services and programs, and independent life skills (Johnson, p. 118). The most cost-effective way to address at-risk populations is to prevent them from occurring in the first place.

Problem Statement

The importance of having educational programs, mental health treatment services, and parental involvement will reduce juvenile recidivism. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, recidivism is defined as the repetition of criminal behavior (Bostic, 2014). In the criminal justice system, it is important to not treat children like adults. The frontal lobe of the human brain is not fully developed until young adulthood, which controls decision-making functions. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), teenagers are more likely than adults to be impulsive, engage in risky or dangerous behavior, and get into accidents (Point Park University, 2019). Children may not always understand the consequences of their actions and if provided with the right intervention, juvenile offenders can be successfully rehabilitated and will not commit criminal acts in adulthood. By having these three factors included in the treatment of juvenile offenders, juveniles will be less likely to continue to commit crimes and become successful in adulthood.

Parental Involvement

Parental involvement in child services has been implicated as a necessary element to facilitate positive treatment outcomes in the mental health, education, and child welfare sectors (Burke et al. 2014). Research in best practices for prevention, intervention, and aftercare services for juveniles calls for the participation of, education of, and supports for biological parents, surrogates, or guardians to ensure that families are engaged in the process (National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, p. 1). Family involvement engages the family in decision-making. Consistent involvement can help the youth by reducing anxiety, reinforcing the importance of treatment, proper use of medication, and it helps increase the chance of a smooth transition home once the juvenile is released from the juvenile justice system. Families can also benefit from being more involved with their youth. They are aware of where this child is and what is happening to them, understand the process and expectations of the juvenile justice system so they can make more informed decisions, and feeling valued for the information they can share about their children such as strengths and needs, diagnostic, treatment, medication history, patterns of behavior, and educational background and status (National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, pp 2-3). Family support increases the likelihood of successful reentry by acting as a protective factor against recidivism amount youth. Social support creates positive social bonds to the family and can act as a buffer against traumatic and stressful events such as being detained.

Educational Programs

Most of the youth who enter the juvenile justice system have intense educational needs. Large numbers of incarcerated juveniles are marginally literate or illiterate and have experienced school failure and retention. Helping youth obtain educational skills is one of the most effective approaches in the prevention of delinquency and recidivism. Higher levels of literacy are associated with lower rates of juvenile delinquency, re-arrest, and recidivism. According to Project READ, most incarcerated youth lag two or more years behind their peers in basic academic skills and have higher rates of grade retention, absenteeism, and suspension or expulsion. A national study found that more than one-third of youth incarcerated at the median age of 15.5 read below the 4th-grade level (The National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice). Although it has not been proven that school factors cause delinquency, most researchers concur that schooling can contribute to the production of delinquent behavior. Studies have found negative associations between school performances, such as grades and test scores, and delinquency. Most delinquents have a record of poor achievement and truancy. Youth who are academically successful are less likely to be involved in delinquency (Steiger et al., p 1).

Mental Health Services

The juvenile justice system is currently faced with the task of providing mental health assessments and treatment services for its youth. The juvenile justice system has been emphasized to serve the needs and rights of children. The prevalence rate of youth with mental health disorders within the juvenile justice system is found to be higher than the general population of adolescents. Approximately 50 to 75 percent of the 2 million youth encountering the juvenile justice system meet the criteria for a mental health disorder. The high prevalence of mental health disorders within the juvenile justice system does not necessitate a need for treatment, but a need for different levels of mental care with treatment options. It has been noted that the most common and effective treatments include professional clinical care, psychopharmacology, and structuring of an environment to protect youth as well as reduce stress while in crisis. Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions (CBT) have been proven to reduce future delinquency with youth who display depression and anxiety disorders. CBT teaches youth awareness of social cues and promotes delaying, problem-solving, and nonaggressive responding strategies. CBT has been used to address issues such as interpersonal, problem solving, anger management, and social skills in individual and group treatment (Underwood and Washington, pp. 2-4).

Method and Design

Juvenile recidivism is defined in three categories: youth who are adjudicated for new offenses while in custody, youth supervised in the community who have a subsequent arrest or adjudication/conviction while on supervision, and youth discharged from the juvenile court jurisdiction and then have a subsequent arrest, adjudication or conviction (Crime and Justice Institute, p. 1). The term juvenile can have several different meanings. Juveniles are individuals who are emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually immature. Prevention is a broadly defined term and can have different meanings as well. The meaning of what prevention is and what it consists of will need to be defined. For the purpose of this study, prevention will be defined as:

“A process of an intervention designed to alter the circumstances associated with problems behaviors. Effective prevention practices decrease problem behaviors and subsequent difficulties children and adolescents experience in school and in the community. Prevention includes a wide range of activities that address the needs of an equally wide range of children and youth” (National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice).

In this proposed study, an appropriate method of measuring juvenile recidivism is to conduct a case study on juveniles in the correctional system using a qualitative research technique. The first group would consist of juveniles who first enter into the juvenile correctional system and the second group would consist of juveniles that have been released back into the community. Recidivism cannot accurately be measured by using arrest data because not all crime is discovered. In this study, recidivism will be measured by interviewing juvenile offenders to determine whether they have committed a crime since entering or exiting a program, analyzing officially recorded criminal justice events such as arrests and convictions, charting a new offense over an elapsed time frame, and measuring the time elapsed until the next crime. Demographics, behavioral, familial, and school-related variables will be also examined and taken into consideration. The interview will consist of questions asking the juvenile and their families about their family history, mental health history, substance abuse history, educational history, criminal history, and peer relations. From the study, the research will show how effective parental involvement, educational program, and mental health services will help reduce recidivism rates among juveniles. If juveniles are provided with the appropriate treatment plan while incarcerated, they will become successful and refrain from committing future crimes. Preventing future re-offending and protecting public safety is a goal shared by all agencies in the juvenile justice system.

Significance and Conclusion

The significance of this study will be how that juveniles can be rehabilitated if they are treated properly. As noted earlier in the paper, the brain is not fully developed until the early 20s. If juveniles are provided with the correct resources and shown some type of compassion, their behavior will most likely change. Most juveniles in the juvenile correctional system come from broken homes, where either one or both of the parents may be absent. Youth are being raised by grandparents or relatives who cannot control the mental health effects these youth are facing. By having more mental health and educational programs with the juvenile correctional system, it will prove that juveniles do deserve a second chance and should be locked away. It has also been shown how the incarceration of juveniles has lasting effects on their mental health. After being released, some juveniles do not know how to adjust back into society and lack the necessary independent living skills to be successful. When juveniles recidivate, it is due to the lack of parental control/support, lack of education to continue in school, and negative environments that encourage criminal behavior. Throughout the world, each country has a different view on what a juvenile is considered. A national definition on who is considered a juvenile should be accepted and countries such as the United States and South Africa should take into consideration the juvenile correctional procedures in China. In China, a juvenile delinquent and juvenile criminal is someone under the age of 25. China also takes into consideration the use of the family and the youth’s community in aiding the juvenile. But how do you help a juvenile who may live in a poor community or experience violence on a daily basis like in South Africa? This study will help to better understand why juveniles continue to commit more crimes and what can be done to keep them from committing more crimes. As juvenile delinquency continues to increase, national crime rates and juvenile prison populations will inflate. If juveniles who continue to commit crimes lack school initiative and family support, the standard of living with also be lower.

Youth Involved With The Juvenile Crime In The United States

In all of the 50 states that comprise the United States of America, youths under the age of 18 can be tried in an adult criminal court system through several types of juvenile transfer laws. In Colorado, adolescence as young as 12 years old can be adjudicated as adults, as a part of the options given by a juvenile court judge. Once young people are removed from the juvenile system, they are more likely to be convicted and characteristically receive harsher verdicts than their peers who remain in the juvenile court system and are charged with similar crimes. This practice destabilizes the purpose of the juvenile court system and chases punishment rather than the needed intent of rehabilitation. Incarcerating our teenagers leaves them more likely to be exposed to extreme forms of violence, fall victim to different forms of abuse, and suffer from mental illness. Additionally, laws that permit our children in their formative years to be tried as adults replicate and strengthen the racial inequalities that depict the justice system in the United States. Although juveniles should be held accountable for their actions, and liable for the crime, the juvenile justice system should be designed to regulate the consequences. Therefore, teenagers should not be arbitrated in the same courts as adults.

Colorado is one of only 4 states in which district attorneys have such a vast amount of discretion, to indict offenders who are 14 to 16 years old in adult court, deprived of a legal hearing on the matter, in a procedure branded ‘direct file.’ In the majority of those cases, the adolescents never stand before a judge and a jury. Statistics show that 95 percent of the direct file cases have a plea bargain as the outcome. A staggering 1,800 direct file cases have been filed in Colorado between 1999 and 2010, and roughly 85% of these instances comprise lower to middle-class felonies. Consequently, only 5 percent were essentially first-degree murder cases. The direct file was envisioned to be used in only the most serious cases, however, it is frequently employed in lower felony cases towards teenagers who have had no previous criminal record, and disproportionately in situations concerning respondents of color. An inquiry conducted by the Colorado Independent discovered that an uneven percentage of the young people tried as adults are ethnic minority groups. This number turns out to be even more disproportionate when you look at the small percentage of ethnic groups that comprise Colorado’s population.

Adolescence of color is overrepresented at each phase of the juvenile court system. Widespread racial biases are apparent in the way that minors of color are disciplined, patrolled, detained, sentenced, and imprisoned. These disproportions persevere even after monitoring the variables like offense brutality and whether or not there is a prior criminal record. Youth of color have a higher probability of being tried as adults vs Caucasian youths, even after being charged with comparable crimes. Presently, an assessed 250,000 youths are sentenced, or incarcerated as adults every year in the United States. On any given day, 10,000 adolescence are detained or imprisoned in adult jails and prisons. Studies prove that teenagers apprehended and placed in adult facilities are thirty-six times more likely to commit suicide and are at the highest risk of sexual victimization.

Those who oppose the notion that minors should only be sent to juvenile court have claimed that if minors who commit vicious misconduct were tried as adults and penalized as such, the number of violent crimes committed by adolescence would lessen. Subsequently, they make the claim that in the future, the number of vehement crimes overall would decline, as harder penalties and sentences would be set in place to keep violent offenders in prison for lengthier sentences. ‘Grown enough to commit a crime, adult enough to do time,” is a shared expression utilized by individuals, when they streamline the subject of young criminals being treated to the adult version of our justice system. However, the Juvenile Court system structure is designed to shield the youths from themselves. If it cannot achieve this goal, then all confidence is lost.

Trying adolescents as adults represents a double standard. Impartiality is a benefit that every human being pursues in different situations and one that is protected by the constitution of the United States. The law applies reason and deliberation in developing protocols that guide minors. It contends that persons under the age of eighteen years old are immature, negligent, and extremely vulnerable to manipulation. Furthermore, psychologists in pact support the belief that adolescent’s mental development is not at its highest, hence they do not always fully grasp right and wrong. In this respect, the government forbids adolescents from adult responsibilities such as voting, joining the military, smoking, and drinking. Thus, believing that they are not capable of the above actions, and then holding them to the ideals of adults is prejudicial, as it is very distinct that juveniles are not adults, and also contravenes the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Rendering to this Amendment, every single individual is protected against excessive bail and fines and from receiving cruel and unusual punishment. An example was the 2012 Miller v. Alabama case, where the Supreme Court pronounced that the sentencing of life without parole for adolescents seventeen and below, was unconstitutional (Supreme Court, 2012). Being that the Supreme Court is the uppermost court that infers the law, charging minors as adults results in noncompliance with the Constitution, which in itself is a criminal offense.

Prosecution of juveniles as adults signify a failure in our justice system. This system subjectifies the youngest and the less advantaged members of society to a series of violence and destruction deprived of rehabilitation and compassion. Nonetheless, due to the extreme nature of the criminalities committed, the system chooses otherwise. Placing juveniles in adult courts is wrong, as not only does it infringe on their constitutional rights, it introduces them to all methods of harm and exploitation while failing to caution society on the ensuing human beings the progression produces and generates a more noteworthy problem of recidivism. Albeit, teenagers should on no occasion go before the adult justice system.

Juvenile Crime: Teens Make Rash And Abrupt Decisions Which Get Them In Trouble

A problem that has traversed its way through our society, multiple times reaching the Supreme Court. A court that hears around 100 cases a year has chosen to hear multiple cases regarding this matter. The matter of whether or not children should be tried in court as a child or as an adult. Many cases have ended up trying kids as adults and many have not. What is the best choice for the offender and the victim of the crime? Well, the best option would be to try kids solely as children and not as adults because of their lack of maturity and willpower, and lack of a guiding figure or punishment.

Teenagers are often known to make rash decisions and get into more trouble than when they were younger. You might ask, “why is this so?” Well as it turns out teenagers actually lose some of their decision-making skills when they enter the teenage age range. One of the studies that show this is a study done by Paul Thompson, who is an assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine which says “Brain cells and connections are only being lost in the areas controlling impulses, risk-taking, and self-control.” This shows us that since the brain cells are being lost that means all of these areas are losing effectiveness, in turn, the teens will have a loss in self-control and impulses which would cause teens to make rash decisions which would lead to possible issues. Someone might say that this only happens to some teens, which are the kids that get into trouble but as it turns out the study also says that “the loss was like a wildfire, and you could see it in every teen.”

The author is clearly showing us that it happens to every teen. Therefore all teens are more inclined to make rash and abrupt decisions that would get them in trouble. Others might also say that this doesn’t make up the fact that the child committed a crime which is true. The punishment of the crime is probably the most important part. A large number of kids tend to commit large crimes only after they have committed smaller and smaller crimes. Children aren’t going to go from anything to murder. This is where punishment would come in. Punishing the child is an important lesson and is used as a method of teaching so that the child won’t do it again and understands the consequences of their actions. This is why lots of the children that do not have a strong parental role in their life tend to end up worse.

This leads to the other reason kids should be tried as children which are mostly children that are getting into trouble tend to be missing a supporting fraternal or maternal role in their family. According to Robert Rector of the heritage foundation, “children without a father are more than twice as likely to be arrested for juvenile crime.” This conveys that kids that when a kid is missing such a large role model in life then they don’t have anything to base how they should act on. Without this extremely important role, the cause is obvious. In most families the father is the person that delivers punishment to the child, so when the father is gone the kids don’t learn from the mistakes they make which therefore leaves the child with a lack of knowledge when it comes to right and wrong. According to Chuck Smith, a Kansas State University child development expert says that “as a child grows and matures, the mother – whether biological or a stepmother – plays an important role in her child’s development, character and attitudes.”

Drugs And Alcohol Are The Main Leaders Of The Juvenile Crime

Convictions, careless mistakes, and just a little bit of ̈fun ̈. These are what many teens ages 13-17 go through. Sometimes teens are with their friends and they want to fit in or to be the cool guy they end up committing a crime. Many teens go through difficult times, so they need guidance and help so they can stay out of trouble.

Some of the crimes include the vandalism of property, gun violence, cyberbullying, illegal use of drugs, drunk driving, and in some states running away from home. The big word that we are going to focus on is the word influence. This word is everything during teen years. If a teen has a parent that is addicted to drugs or alcohol then the teen is at a higher risk of becoming addicted themselves. Another thing is that if the teens friends are doing inappropriate things such as drugs and alcohol then the teen is more likely than not going to be doing these things. Teens that are not cared for properly are many times captured by the evils of society. Drugs and alcohol are the main leaders of this evil. They cause young teenagers with bright futures to have to live life behind bars and not get to live a nice normal life. When behind bars juveniles are opened to real life and are mistreated way too young. They get cold-hearted and forget what it means to really live freely. When teens commit crimes over half of the time it is without knowing how much trouble they would get into when doing the act of crime. Other times more than likely they are with bad friends who have convinced them to do something that the young ignorant teen has decided to do.

We should educate and handle our youths better in and outside of the classroom. Teachers can only do so much to where the parents have a great amount of control over the teen. We as a whole should do something about these teens. The amount of juveniles crimes increases tremendously over the years. And when the numbers do go down it isn’t for very long. As a community or city, we should make sure there are more plants are that the place doesn’t look like it is in ruins because this can have an effect on our youth. Turning the kind-hearted future of America into cold-blooded killers. Let’s make a difference because every second matter. Adolescent wrongdoing is one of the country’s atrocious issues. Worry about it is generally shared by bureaucratic, state, and nearby government authorities and by people in general. This is an ongoing issue, this worry has developed through time and is getting worse. Adolescent viciousness started in the mid-1980s and topped in the mid-1990s. Although adolescent wrongdoing rates seem to have fallen since the mid-1990s, this lessening has not reduced the worry. Numerous states started taking a harder authoritative position toward adolescents in the late 1970s and mid-1980s, a period during which adolescent wrongdoing rates were steady or falling somewhat, and government reformers were optimistic and so they reduced correctional measures. A portion of the conflict between the government plan and what was occurring in the states around then may have been brought about by huge changes in legitimate methods that made adolescent court forms increasingly numerous – however not indistinguishable – to those in criminal court. The fundamental reaction to the latest spike in vicious adolescent wrongdoing has been sanctioning of laws that further obscure differentiations between adolescent courts and grown-up courts. States kept on toughening their adolescent wrongdoing laws as of the late 1900s, making condemning progressively reformatory, growing admissible exchanges to criminal (grown-up) court, or getting rid of a portion of the privacy protections of adolescent court.

Numerous such changes were established after the adolescent savage wrongdoing rate had just started to fall. The rehabilitative model typified in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, concentrating on the requirements of the youthful guilty party, has lost perpetually ground in the course of recent years to correctional models that emphasize for the most part on the offense submitted. Government arrangements on adolescent wrongdoing must regularly battle with the suitable equalization of worry over the sound advancement of youngsters and teenagers who disregard the law and an open want to rebuff hoodlums. This strain among restoration and discipline when managing kids and youths who perpetrate violations brings about a conflicted direction toward youthful wrongdoers. Criminal acts must be stifled, denounced, and rebuffed. By the by, kids and youths who carry out criminal acts must be taught and bolstered in a development procedure that should be the goal of government arrangement for every youngster, including youthful crime committers. What I strongly believe we should do about our youth is educate or punish them in a more productive way. I say this because we punish or teens either too harshly or too soft. We either put them down too hard to a point where they have raged stored up inside or were too soft and they think they can just walk all over anyone.

Social Construction Of Youth Crime

This essay will analyse and evaluate the historical and contemporary contextualisation of the development of the social construction of youth and evaluate the states response to the youth offending. It will appraise the process of distinguishing childhood from little adults to a life stage synonymous with vulnerability and in need of protection. It will further evaluate how differences in social class led to an increased visibility of children during the industrial revolution leading to the creation of tension and conflicting views within the adult population. The introduction of the category of youth further created a perceived problem of youth crime and subsequent legislative responses for young offenders. It will further consider the role of the media specifically during the 1990’s and their contribution to the populist punitive policies introduced under the New Labour Government. It will assess the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Anti-Social Behaviour Orders that were implemented as a measure to deal with behaviour considered to cause alarm or distress, and the consequences for those individuals who breached the imposed order.

Within contemporary Western society the concept of childhood invokes visions of vulnerability, innocence, love and nurture (Munchie, 1999). However French Historian, Phillipe Ariès (1914-1984) determined the process of differentiating childhood as a separate life stage to adulthood began during the seventeenth century (Clarke, 2003). Ariès conclusions were driven in part through research of various medieval arts, writings and clothing, the abandonment of babies and a cultural belief of a male child being of a greater value than a female. Although there are many who agree with the evidence from which Ariès made his conclusion, others have sought to criticise his suppositions. Linda Pollock (1959) in Clarke (2003) argued her examination of diaries, autobiographies and various first-hand accounts between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries suggested more similarities between historical and contemporary families than Ariès would acknowledge (Clarke, 2003). Whilst drawing on studies investigating medieval family life within Western Europe during the twelfth and fifteenth centuries, Shulamith Shahar (1983) questioned Ariès findings arguing rather than medieval society thinking of children as ‘little adults’, childhood was separated into distinct developmental stages similar to those within contemporary society (Shahar, 1992).

During the industrial revolution the bourgeoisie and social reformers conception of childhood evolved to distinguish the life stage as separate to that of adulthood and was considered to be one of vulnerability and requiring protection, whilst in contrast childhood within the working classes were regarded as a commodity and routinely exploited (Clarke, 2003). The introduction of The Factory Act 1833 restricted the employment of children under the age of nine years, and further limited the total number of working hours permitted for those aged nine to eighteen years (Parliament, 2019). Consequently working class children were either left to their own devices whilst their parents worked, or alternatively to compensate for lost earnings, forced onto the streets to sell goods. With no compulsory education system, children were increasingly visible on the streets. Distinct from adults in their appearance and behaviour a degree of apprehension ensued within the adult population leading to conflicting views of an innocent child and the threatening adolescent. The dichotomy led to the construction of a new category within society, a developmental period older than a child yet younger than an adult, a period synonymous with chaotic behaviour, physical, hormonal and psychological changes, a period known as youth (Case, 2016).

Official crime statistics developed within the same period as the emergence of a social construction of youth. Crime, previously measured against the type of offence, introduced a measurement category to include the age of offender. Such measurements led to the categorisation of crime by a specific developmental stage, and therefore introducing youth crime to be perceived as problematic. The supposed problem led to governmental responses including legislation and systems designed to respond to the problem of youth crime (Case, 2016). Such responses included a piece of legislation that for the first time distinguished the adult and juvenile offender, The Juvenile Offenders Act 1847. The act imposed young people under the age of fourteen for lesser offences to be tried in a Magistrate’s court. 1823 witnessed both the introduction of a juvenile only prison ship and the first juvenile only custodial establishment, Parkhurst. However, children were still routinely incarcerated within adult establishments until the passing of the Reformatory Schools Act 1899. The abolishment of custody for children under the age of fourteen was introduced within The Children Act of 1908, which also legislated for a separate juvenile court to deal with issues of both crime and needs of children who committed crime (Munchie, 1999).

Approaches to youth justice historically have oscillated between welfare attitudes which places the focus towards the needs of an individual, rather than the punishment for the offences committed and punitive methods which seek to hold an individual accountable irrespective of age or individual circumstance, pursues a punishment that fits the crime (Case, 2018). The general election of 1979 witnessed the Conservative Party led by Margaret Thatcher form a government with a manifesto that placed an emphasis on punitive law and order, introducing policies arguably influenced by the criminological theory of right realism. Right realism determines crime occurs following a calculated appraisal of the harms versus the benefits leading to a logical individual choice (Maguire, et al., 2002). Punitive policies ultimately prove popular with the electorate and subsequently each general election since 1979 has witnessed contending political party’s placing specific attention to the problem of crime and youth crime within their manifesto. Indeed the lead up to the general election of 1997 witnessed both the Conservative’s and New Labour’s party continued punitive rhetoric (Newburn, 2013)

The summer of 1991 witnessed a series of urban disturbances, primarily involving young white men residing in areas suffering from social-economic deprivation (Moran, 2005). The disturbances allowed for the concerns surrounding the activities of young people to be amplified and distorted by the media (Tunstall, 1997). The culmination of public concern regarding youth offending arose following the murder of James Bulger in February 1993 by two ten year old boys. Although child on child murders are incredibly rare, media representations fuelled a moral panic (Munchie, 1999). Stan Cohen (1918 – 2014) theorises a moral panic as a way in which the media utilise dramatic reporting styles and sensationalist headlines to distort and exaggerate a sequence of events (Cohen, 1972). Consequently rather than being considered innocent and requiring protection, attitudes towards children indurated leading to a notion of populist punitiveness. Perceptions arguably archaic and perhaps more fitting to the period encompassing pre industrial society rather than belonging in a progressive and contemporary society (Case, 2018).

The 1996 Audit commission report ‘Misspent Youth’ concluded interventions within the youth justice system under the Conservative administration was despite the vast sum of invested capital were largely futile (Gough & Pycroft, 2019). Youth justice policies under the Conservative Government focused on a philosophy of diversion, decriminalisation and decarceration seeking to divert children away from the criminal justice system. Arguably the policies could be seen to be a contradiction of a manifesto that placed a heavy emphasis onto law and order (Yates, 2003). Furthermore what could be construed as a more left wing and progressive approach to youth justice, could be argued to be influenced by the neo-liberalist approach of reducing public expenditure.

Following the Misspent Youth’ report, and during their period of opposition, New Labour published details outlining their strategies to reform the youth justice system in their pre-election consultation document titled Tackling Youth Crime, Reforming Youth Justice. The document reaffirmed prioritising the modernisation of youth justice and proposed reforms including what became a key element within New Labour’s 1997 manifesto, and heavily influenced following the amplified response to Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the abolition of doli incapax (Newburn, 2003). Doli incapax, the presumption in law, requiring a court to satisfy offences commissioned were rather than being simply naughty, known to be seriously wrong. Such presumption afforded an element of protection to children under the age of fourteen (Joyce, 2013).

The general election of 1997 witnessed New Labour led by Tony Blair to form a government with the pledge “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” (The Home Office, 2010). Consolidating the Misspent Youth report, New Labour commissioned the 1997 White Paper ‘No More Excuses’, focusing on both the responsibilisation of young people who offend and the prevention of those young people from committing further offences (Case, et al., 2017). No More Excuses and five further consultation documents were legislated into The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA). As detailed within the manifesto the CDA duly abolished the presumption of doli incapax leading to children over the age of ten years considered like adults, legally responsible for their actions, and introduced provisions for the prevention of crime and disorder (Home Office, 1998). Containing an amalgamation of preventative, ameliorative and punitive elements, the CDA supplanted a philosophy of diversion decriminalisation and decarceration to one of, managerialism, responsibilisation and intervention. The philosophy implements the management of efficient and measureable performance targets, diverting responses away from a discourse of social inequality and disadvantage towards one that encompassed individual responsibility whilst justifying the early intervention into the lives of young people (Joyce, 2013).

Aspects of New Labour policies are influenced by the criminological theory of left realism. Left realism acknowledges concerns such as poor housing, socio economic deprivation, marginalisation and inequality as key factors that can contribute to the causation of crime (Newburn, 2013). New Labour established the Social Exclusion Unit with the remit to provide joined up solutions for joined up problems (Blair, 1997), however in contrast elements of New Labour policies compare with the punitive elements of conservative ideology, signalling a political move from the traditional centre left historically associated with Labour, to a more traditional Conservative centre right (Newburn, 2003). Through the adoption of a ‘what works’ paradigm the act introduced a plethora of orders directed towards young offenders including the Anti-Social Behaviour Order (Newburn, 2003).

Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) were introduced under Section 1 of the CDA designed with the objective to combat behaviour “that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself” (Home Office, 1998). ASBOs could be applied for by Local Authorities or the Police under civil procedures and be imposed on any person above the age of ten years. Issued by a Magistrate’s court the orders required only the civil burden of proof, the balance of probabilities (Quinn & Elliot, 2013). Individual support orders were introduced as a welfarist bolt on to ASBOs under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. The support orders imposed obligations to those aged between ten and seventeen to tackle the causes of their behaviour (Joyce, 2013).

ASBOs arguably were heavily influenced by Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) Broken Windows Thesis which suggests problems ignored by a community alters the perception by people that an area is uncared for and thus attracts further problems (Kelling & Wilson, 1982). New Labour affirmed the orders were designed to construct strong and cohesive communities by providing methods to addressing the harm and distress felt by innocent and law abiding citizens. Critically however, anti-social behaviour itself both highly subjective and lacking in definition, the orders provided a means whereby the intolerant were able to sanction conduct of which they objected (Joyce, 2013). Furthermore and controversially, non-compliance of an ABSO resulted in criminal proceedings with breaches triable in either the Magistrates or Crown Court carrying a sentence of between two and five years (Newburn, 2003).

The management of anti-social behaviour was further extended under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 extending the provisions for Parenting Orders to include not just young people who had offended, but also those who had either truanted of been excluded from education. Ultimately the expansion of the orders drew more young people into a system of formal interventions even though no criminal offence had been committed (Haines & Case, 2015). 2005 witnessed a spike of both ASBOs issued and consequently breached ( Home Office, 2016), such could be considered a consequence of the introduction of Comprehensive Performance Assessments, presented to deliver a quantifiable measurement evidencing reductions in anti-social behaviour (Joyce, 2013).

Critically ASBOs could be regarded as an unjustified extension of the power of the state focused towards marginalised groups on the basis of existing social problems historically associated with growing up, that had been to a great extent artificially exaggerated. The introduction of the ABSO arguably resulted in widening the net of social control (Joyce, 2013). Stan Cohen (1942 – 2013) theorises net widening as a concept whereby due to the result of administrative changes, an increased quantity of individuals enter the criminal justice system. The increase in supplementary orders invariably resulted in individuals who previously would have slipped through the system being ensnared for extended periods, he describes as thinning the mesh, whilst the breach of an ASBO resulted in the criminalisation for a civil order thus resulted in a blurring of the boundaries (Cohen, 1985).

In conclusion the concept of childhood as contemporary society understands began during the industrial revolution. The bourgeoisie and social reformers A government that purports to have an interest in tackling social exclusion at the same time promotes legislative measures destined to create a whole new breed of outcast.

Juvenile Justice System: Where Is It Now?

From the start of the nineteenth century, youth have been granted the privilege of being tried as children, rather than adults. Before then, any child above the age of seven could be charged as an adult criminal and sent to prison (National Academic Press). According to Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Crime which was published by the National Academic Press, the first juvenile court was founded in 1899 in Chicago. The United States juvenile justice system has been back and forth on giving juveniles rights in court, which has been mostly to the benefit of the juveniles. One of the most pressing issues with the juvenile justice system is how it affects the juveniles rights, which will be examined throughout this paper from a historical perspective. During the Progressive Era of the 1890s, progressives worked to “make American society a better and safer place in which to live” (Library of Congress). With this, juveniles were given more rights to increase their quality of life by giving them more opportunity to have a shorter prison sentence. Despite this improvement for juvenile offenders, their rights soon decreased going into the 1960s, but have greatly evolved today to give youths a lower time sentence they need in order to lead successful lives.

When juvenile centers were first made during the Progressive Era, the public began to believe that youth being charged and tried as adults was unnecessary. Another source, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ), supports claims made throughout Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Crime, such as how juvenile cases were often individualized. The CJCJ explains that these first juvenile courts served to give children individualized attention from a judge who had genuine concern for each case. As a result, juveniles had less severe sentences and were let out at an earlier age.

Although juveniles were granted the right to be charged with less harsh sentences as adults, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in re Gault in 1967 changed some juvenile rights by introducing due process (CJCJ). From the Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell Law University, due process is defined as government operating within the law and providing fair procedures (LII). From this change, youth were able to have all legal rights offered in a courtroom. According to the Juvenile Law Center (JLC), a source that voices the need for rights and opportunity for youths in the justice system, explains that the outcome of Gault involved youth charged with delinquency having the same rights as adults. Some of these rights were a juvenile’s ability to confront witnesses that testified against them, and to have an attorney (JLC). Before re Gault, juveniles were viewed as a problem needing to be fixed, with the only solution being harsh punishment and unfair treatment. From the American Bar Association, an organization that advances the rule of law across the US, similar acts of trying to help juveniles are researched. In 1974, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act helped to remove juveniles from adult prisons they were placed in after being tried (Blitzman). About ten years after this ruling, juvenile crime increased and youth rights of being charged as a juvenile were lost. The process of the new “tough on crime” resulted in policies that gave harsher punishments to juveniles who were convicted. They were more likely to be sent into adult court, and sentenced into prison with adults, causing physical abuse and endangerment when incarcerated.

Today, the United States uses the age of eighteen to regulate who does and doesn’t go to juvenile courts. According to the JLC, youth are most often under juvenile system laws until the age of twenty-one. The result of this is youth being able to stay safer and away from the realities of incarceration with adults. The National Conference of State Legislatures, an organization to advance the effectiveness of state legislatures, investigates and finds contradictory evidence to the JLC. According to Anne Teigen, many states draw the line for juveniles at seventeen, but five states choose a year earlier, the age of sixteen (NCSL). In states such as Wisconsin and Georgia, youth who haven’t reached the age of eighteen can be put into adult court and incarcerated with adults as well. With this, it is evident that the juveniles in those five states are not receiving the benefits other juveniles are seeing in the remaining forty-five states. The hundreds of thousands of juveniles who are convicted as adults at the age of sixteen are becoming victims of physical abuse and seeing loss of life opportunity sooner and more frequently than youths in the other forty-five states.

While the U.S. does have a functioning juvenile system and has evolved from the past, they could follow in the steps of foreign countries to reduce the number of juvenile arrests. The National Juvenile Justice Network (NJJN), an organization that advocates for a fairer U.S. juvenile justice system, discusses the New Zealand juvenile system. In an executive summary titled “New Zealand’s Youth Justice Transformation: Lessons for the United States”, New Zealand was able to enforce a law stating that police could not arrest juveniles without a warrant. Minor incidents are handled by front-line police, and as a result, the numbers of arrest only involved twelve percent of all juvenile offenders (Goemann). For a more effective way to handle the juveniles in the future, the United States can alter their juvenile system to reduce the number of juveniles incarcerated in all states, keeping vulnerable youths out of potentially being imprisoned with adults. Alongside the New Zealand juvenile justice system being potentially influential for the United States, the Austrian juvenile system could help as well. For juveniles in Austria, their sentences are half of the adults, which causes them to serve time for the crime they committed, but they are able to learn from their bad decisions in less time (Winterdyk). Similar to the New Zealand juvenile system, Austria gives youth additional help in court when they are on trial. Concluding, that if the United States is willing to change their ways of the juvenile system, the youth in the U.S. can benefit from these same advantages such as a lessened time sentence given to those in Austria and New Zealand.

In conclusion, the United States juvenile justice history has changed to accommodate different circumstances including higher crime rates, youth needs, etc. The age limit of eighteen and watch until age twenty-one is beneficial to the youth of the United States, and are helping them to keep chances of growing up to be successful adults. Despite the flaws in the past about juvenile rights and law changes, the juvenile system within the United States is sufficient in reaching its goals compared to thirty or forty years ago.

Bibliography

1. Blitzman, Jay D. ‘Are we criminalizing adolescence?’ GP Solo, Sept.-Oct. 2015, p. 72. Gale General OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A435638773/GPS?u=mtlib_2_1167&sid=GPS&xid=d5a10fd9. Accessed 29 Jan. 2020.
2. “Due Process.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process. Accessed 3 February 2020.
3. Goemann, Melissa. New Zealand’s Youth Justice Transformation: Lessons for the United States 2018. Washington, D.C.: The National Juvenile Justice Network, 2018. https://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/New%20Zealand’s%20Youth%20Justice%20Transformation%20Executive%20Summary%20Final%204.25.18.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2020.
4. “Juvenile Justice History – Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.” – Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, www.cjcj.org/education1/juvenile-justice-history.html. Accessed 15 January 2020
5. “Progressive Era to New Era – American Memory Timeline- Classroom Presentation: Teacher Resources.” Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/progress/. Accessed 3 February 2020.
6. “Read ‘Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice’ at NAP.edu.” National Academies Press: OpenBook, https://www.nap.edu/read/9747/chapter/7. Accessed 13 January 2020.
7. Teigen, Anne, and Karen McInnes. Juvenile Age of Jurisdiction and Transfer to Adult Court Laws, https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx. Accessed 13 January 2020.
8. Winterdyk, John A. Juvenile Justice: International Perspectives, Models, and Trends . CRC Press , 2014. Accessed 21 January 2020.
9. “Youth in the Justice System: An Overview.” Juvenile Law Center, https://jlc.org/youth-justice-system-overview. Accessed 13 January 2020. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/special_topics/stateprofile.asp – source for Marina to use for percentages of minorities

A Comprehensive Approach To Solve Juvenile Crime And Violence

Australia’s what works rehabilitation scheme In recent years, correctional agencies around Australia have been increasingly influenced by what is commonly known as the ‘what works’ model to offender rehabilitation. This system claims to be more effective in discouraging reoffences. The approach consists of three key principles, the ‘risk principle’ that suggests offenders most likely to re-offend should receive the most intensive rehabilitation. More intensive programs are offered to those assessed high risk.

The ‘needs principle’ aim to change the needs most directly related to offending. The ‘responsivity principle’ matches the learning styles of offenders such that they are actively engaged in a process of behavioral change. So you might ask, the Australian government has enforcement laws and rehabilitation programs in place to discourage young offenders from reoffending? Yes, rehabilitation has been an attempt to resolve the problem for decades. But according to data provided by the Sunday Morning Herald, alone in the second half of 2018, 300 kids have been in juvenile detention. Let alone last year in the Wyndham area, 500 kids between the ages 10 and 17 were sent to court for the commitment of criminal acts. With more kids being detained, the cost of rehabilitation grows to be massive and the effectiveness of juvenile detention ceases to drop. This influence on our juvenile crime system was definitely a positive one, but I wouldn’t say it is enough to lower threat in the community.

When I heard from a partner working with the government, I couldn’t believe eighty-five thousand dollars goes into housing one child in a juvenile justice system. That same amount of money could employ three at-risk kids on the streets full-time with the help of local businesses. The government prepares to spend over a hundred million dollars to incarcerate children in our country. With just 25% of that, with only 25 million dollars, we could employ 1200 kids full time. There is so much more we could do with our resources to help youths as a society. I am in no way saying we should let kids that commit criminal acts runaway guilt-free. But locking them up in rehabilitation isn’t really going to change them. They are our future. ‘Clearly we need new strategies and new ways to tackle this problem because it’s simply not going away and it’s only getting worse.’ Some of you are thinking: it could be my daughter, my son, a relative of mine, but what can I do about it? I would like to spend the rest of this speech talking to those of you. That would like to help, that care for future generations.

First of all, juvenile crime is not an issue that can be easily resolved in a snap. Critical to reducing the immediate consequences of youth violence, those in position would have to make improvements in pre-hospital and emergency care, including access to care. But to radically solve this issue, I first would like to encourage those in the position to introduce youth development programs as early as preschool. These programs can range from life skills to social development and anti-bullying programs that are designed to help children and adolescents manage anger, resolve conflict, and develop the necessary social skills to solve problems.

Secondly, I urge all parents to simply participate in your child’s life. It is great to attend parental support programs to foster positive parenting skills. Don’t let our kids feel invisible. Give credit for their accomplishments and discuss your decisions with them. Thirdly, let’s get our young generation more occupied with full-time or part-time work, school or even housework. Lastly, if you ever fear that an adolescent might be badly influenced, look for front-line workers in your area or reach out to me and I will advise you on what to do more professionally.

Getting a front-hand can really curb things from turning nasty. Whenever I talk about this issue, those kids that I have worked with really come to my mind. Through work and communicating with them, I come to know each and every one of them personally. These children although made wrong decisions once never fails the hope when given a second chance. So, let’s all get them another opportunity.

Why Is It Important To Divert Young People Who Have Committed Crime Away From The Criminal Justice System?

Introduction

The process of criminalisation and marginalisation associated with juvenile offending can impact relationships, education and employment opportunities and mark young offenders with a stigma for the rest of their lives (Cunneen and White 2002). It has been highlighted that the stigmatisation process can lead to a more dangerous form of deviance, ‘’whereby labelled individuals begin to identify with and adopt such identities’’ (Lemert, 1969). The diversion strategies, based on this theoretical concept of labelling, aim to divert young offenders away from the criminal justice system and avoid the criminogenic effects that arise following the interactions with the criminal justice system (Cunneen and White 2002; Farrington 1977).

Further evidence suggests that most juvenile crime is episodic and offending behaviours tend to be controlled once the maturation process takes place (Cunneen and White 2002; Richards 2011). The involvement of young people with crime typically starts between 12 and 16 years of age (Richards 2009) and most likely the majority of them do not reoffend after the first contact with the criminal justice system (Weatherburn 2004). However, researchers underline that fostering the contact of young people with juvenile justice system may be more harmful than productive (Ericson and Vinson 2010) and clearly show that the young people who came into contact with the criminal justice and went through the adjudication process at Children’s Court are significantly more likely to reoffend (Chen et al 2005). Indeed, while recent findings confirm that involvement in the juvenile justice system amplify criminogenic effects and increase the chances of later involvement in crimes during the adulthood (Gatti et al 2009), conversely, young people diverted away from the criminal justice system show lower level of recidivism (Allart et al 2010).

More important, diversionary framework seems to be an effective alternative to the overcrowded juvenile correction system and the associated significant costs (Morris and Maxwell 2003) which did reveal itself as an ineffective measure to prevent reoffending. Furthermore, according to Polk (Polk et al 2003) a youth diversionary framework operates at three different levels: as a crime prevention strategy to prevent young people’s involvement in crime; as a diversionary schemes to divert young people away from the criminal justice system through earlier intervention; as a sentencing option to divert young people from custodial remand.

The diversion framework in Victoria

As a result of being a signatory to the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child, under the provision 40.3, each Australian jurisdiction is obligated to put in place appropriate diversionary measures to deal with young offenders. In Victoria, under the section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), a Magistrates’ Court criminal proceedings can consider appropriate the access to the Criminal Justice diversion Program (CJDP) when a person is charged with summary offences, appears in Court and acknowledges responsibility for that offence. In addition to this legislated diversion scheme for adults offenders, which provides them the opportunity to avoid a criminal record, within the Magistrates ‘Court jurisdiction there are a range of specialist courts focussed on addressing issues associated with criminal behaviours of adults, such as Drug Court, Koori Court, Neighbourhood Justice Centre.

Victorian Youth diversion system and its limitations

In relation to youth crime, the Victoria Government has created the pathways to prevention and rehabilitation through various programs that aim to prevent and reduce recidivism (Department of Justice 2019). Unfortunately, despite the evident commitment to reducing young people’s engagement in crime and the fact that youth diversion programs are supported by international law, Victoria’s state has not legislated a court-based diversion scheme to address criminal behaviours of young people. Consequently, young people under 18 cannot access a legislated diversionary scheme and programs, similar to the CJDP, in the Children’s Court jurisdiction. Contrary to the expectation, the only legislation to refer to for Victoria’s youth justice service is the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, which provided the constitution of the Children’s Court of Victoria and the criminal responsibility of children, and the Sentencing Act 1991, which allowed to adult courts to sentence young offenders (aged under 21 years) to serve custodial sentences in youth detention instead of adult prison.

Within the Victorian Justice system, other diversionary strategies operate such as police cautioning, and a range of non-cautioning programs for low- and high-level youth offenders such as Youth Support Services, Youth Justice Conferencing and other various programs. However, the limited investment the Government reserves to all those options, particularly scarce in rural and regional areas, reduces considerably the effectiveness of these measures and more broadly of the Victorian diversionary system as whole (Little and Karp 2012). As a result, prisons are overcrowded with a significant overrepresentation of young people with Aboriginal background and young women already victims of violence. While, within the Australian jurisdictions, Victoria presents a lower level of young people serving custodial sentences or on custodial remand, showing a good record of practicing diversion, an overview of the youth justice system highlights that the juvenile justice approach is limited to supervision, community programs and referring to support services.

It seems that Victoria has an incredible range of diversionary services to manage young offenders but, however looking more closer, practices denotes that the Victorian diversion system has a significant gaps in programs availability, in creating equity of access to existing programs and in funding to sustain and implement those programs. There is no doubt that these obstacles affect the design of a diversion policy strategy to keep young people away from the criminal system and at the same time the crime prevention strategies.

The youth criminal behaviours and the ‘’tough on crime response’’

Youth crime and behavioural issues are always a strong topic to discuss. Many years ago, during a speech to the University of Pennsylvania, F. Roosevelt said that ‘’We cannot always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for the future’’. This powerful statement shows us a clear message that the problem of youth offending is not just a Government responsibility but is everyone responsibility within our community. In other words, the problem of youth crime is complex and requires a cooperative approach through the involvement of the families, communities, schools, Governments and agencies, to develop and implement prevention initiatives which can prevent youth from coming into a contact with the criminal justice system and also diverting them from it, reducing recidivism. Recently, rather than acknowledging the concept of cooperative approach and implementation of diversionary strategies through innovative and targeted programs, the Victorian government, incited by the community calls on less tolerance on crime approach and fuelled by media reports, passed the the Children and Justice Legislation Bill, as part of Victoria’s largest legislative measures to fight crime and keep the community safe.

The passing of the Youth Justice Reform Bill had as immediate consequences that young offenders now face longer detention periods and more intensive supervision programs and a reinforcement of the police discretionary powers which generally works against the interests of young people. The immediate debate around these legislative measures has raised many concerns about the erosion of the foundations of Victoria’s youth justice system, which are already undermined by the geographical limit to access to the justice system, the short -term programs and the lack of government funding. Contrary to findings, the public view supports the call for harsher sentences for young offenders, as the community still feels that the most effective way to handle the problem is, once again, the old approach of severe punishment and incarceration. In fact, statistics show that in the last five years the number of young offenders recorded for offences against the person and drug offences have increased, while the proportions recorded for minor offences have decrease. Nonetheless, whilst there is not strong evidence that harsher sentences are more effective in reducing reoffending, experiences from overseas countries with more focus on rehabilitation and diversionary practices, show that this is the right direction to undertake.

There is no doubt that placing emphasis on early prevention intervention, education and rehabilitation as a more extensive approach to prevent crime and divert young people from reoffending, are the keystone to give effectiveness to the justice system. Acknowledging the successes obtained by other countries and inverting the trend of ‘’tough on crime’’, are the steps to undertake to make the juvenile justice system more effective and focused on giving to young people the best opportunities to rethink about their lives and prevent re-offending.

What improvements (if any) could be made to this process?

There are opportunities to improve diversion for young people in Victoria through the acknowledgement by the Government of the existence of different perspectives and international models as best practices but also rethinking youth diversion with new strategies and more adequate and sustained resourcing. Furthermore, it would be vital that the Government makes commitment to introduce legislative or policy changes to compelling the police and courts to consider the diversion as a priority option to prevent crime and reduce reoffending. In addition, it is crucial to investigate and address the causes of criminal behaviours of young people, who often from a very young age have been confronted with domestic violence, child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse. While it is obvious that we cannot generalise about the background of young offenders, we need to recognise that the rising in crime, and in particular juvenile crime, is definitely linked to the disruption of the fundamental pillars of our society such as family, school and community support. Indeed, those traditional values have been, undoubtedly, eroded by family breakdown, acceptance of violence models to solve social and private issues and large use of substances abuse. Redesigning policy strategies, focused on rehabilitation, that emphasise the importance of providing learning opportunities and employment services to young people in detention, would mean undertaking an effective pathway towards reintegration within the society. A wider approach by government to innovate and reinforce diversion options to prevent crime and reduce reoffending, should culminate in ensuring that detention is only seen as a last resort. It is an ambitious and challenging goal but that it is the only way to restate the precise role of punishment which is the re-educative function of it as a pathway leading to rehabilitation.

Conclusion

An important finding of this analysis is that a juvenile diversion system is necessary as an alternative to the overcrowded, very costly, and often ineffective juvenile justice system as several researchers have shown that the way this operates does not lead to rehabilitation. A different approach, more focused on the complexity of the youth experiences and circumstances, is needed to respond to young people’s engagement in criminal behaviours and preventing their transition into a life of crime. A broader approach would also reduce the labelling process associated with criminal behaviours that, primarily, is the cause of missing out any reintegration prospective within society. Therefore, an early intervention, through an effective juvenile diversionary framework, plays a pivotal role in diverting young offending away from criminal justice system. In the current Victorian juvenile system, the access to diversionary schemes has resulted in inequality, depending on geographical residency, level of financial resources, commitment by the communities, and discretionary action by the police and courts.

Should Juveniles be Tried as Adults Essay

Introduction

The issue with juveniles being tried as adults in today’s society was created to handle juvenile offenders based on their youth rather than their crimes. Many states passed laws making it easier to try certain youthful offenders as adults. Many people believe that teens should be held accountable for their actions and tried as adults. If you are worried or care about the punishment being committed, then simply don’t commit the crime, knowing you will face numerous years. While juveniles may be kids, they should be able to distinguish right from wrong, especially in extreme circumstances. Children are most often a product of their home environment. Victims and the families of victims still deserve a sense of justice or accountability if one of their family members is affected or even killed by a juveniles’ offender and society takes a big role in it. If you see something bad happening, speak up and tell the police that you have a right to freedom of speech which we, the people, stand not to speak up for. Giving adolescents very hard sentences gives the feeling that there is no desire for their future and no expectation of them regularly getting to be anything besides a lawbreaker and a convict. This will teach them that being in jail is not a good thing. This is damaging for all of society, especially young people and their families.

The Debate Over Charging Juveniles as Adults

“The only effective way to reduce and prevent juvenile Crime is to balance tough enforcement measures with targeted, effective and intervention initiatives”, stated “Janet Rome”. Yes, some juveniles should be tried as adults for what they did. For example, for a murderer that intends to kill, Premeditated means are considered beforehand. Trying minors as adults will toughen the system and hold someone responsible. Due to juveniles being on the rise for murder, robbery with a weapon, and rape. Then, they should be tried as adults in Florida for these reasons. And solving this problem reduces crime on the street and teaches accountability for the crime they committed. Minors must be fully culpable for their behaviour if we are to deter future delinquents from committing violent crimes. Setting this example and making it known that our cities will be tough on crimes will serve as a wake-up call. Like the three strikes law, the threat of a harsh sentence will most certainly make children think twice before they commit violent crimes. Since 1993, at least 43 states have passed laws making it easier for children to be tried as adults. A juvenile justice bill is awaiting final Congressional approval and contains similar measures for the federal system. Trying minors as adults and subsequently imprisoning them in adult prisons has destructive effects on young prisoners. Young prisoners are vulnerable to various vices in adult prisons.

Crime Is On The Rise

In the past few years nationwide, the Department of Juvenile Justice Centre has recorded many crimes committed by juvenile offenders. This is a scary fact because it shows how the environmental boundaries are being more used and more blurred for these irrational irresponsible young people. Many of them area unit responsive to simple, imperfect, and not good usage of the juvenile justice system, and use that to their advantage. When these conditions force or break them open to face reality, such as a life of long sentences with minimal at least or no chances at coming back to get out, they develop or evolve into stress and depression that increase their likelihood of killing or committing suicide.

Reducing crime rates make youth access to handguns harder and make guns safer to reduce gun‐related crimes by juveniles. Scientific research shows key organic process variations between youth and adults that impact youth’s a higher understanding process, impulse, control, and susceptibility to peer pressure. While these variations don’t excuse youth from responsibility for their actions, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that youth are less blameworthy than adults and more capable of change and rehabilitation (Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, J.D.B. v. North Carolina, Miller v. Alabama, Montgomery v. Louisiana).

“The real important for us as a society to remember that the youth within juvenile justice systems are, most of the time, youths who simply haven’t had the right mentors and supporters around them – because of circumstances beyond their control” stated by ‘Q’Orianka Kilcher”. Punishing kids constant approach we have a tendency to penalize adults doesn’t advance public safety. Research also shows that as youth mature, they are substantially less likely to re-offend; locking children up for years will extend their incarceration well beyond the time needed for them to be rehabilitated Juveniles can be tried as adults for crimes ranging from kidnapping, murder, rape, arson, robbery, torture, assault, and more. Some of the cases that are sent to adult court are petty crimes, such as: underage drinking, possession of a controlled substance, and other minor crimes. The question is whether or not they must be tried as adults.

On the other hand, juveniles may lead a person to wonder what brought a child to commit these crimes. One would possibly any examine that if a juvenile person is engaged in alleged “adult” activities, what kind of activities might a child choose to be involved in adulthood, everyone has a choice even a child. Many kids within the juvenile systems return from broken homes and family members who have conjointly been in and out of the scheme, making it an easier way to prosecute juveniles as adults. But some benefits with a juvenile being tried as an adult are It shows that a crime is a crime, No matter your age No matter what age someone is, they have to learn to require responsibility for his or her actions and be created to grasp the implications of dangerous choices. If teenagers don’t seem to be educated right from wrong before they transition into adults, they need the next tendency to commit a lot of crimes.

Reasons Why Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults

The primary reason why most juveniles face adult justice system is to inflict harsh punishments that deter them from future criminality, Which is a pretty big deal for most teens. What most 18- year olds are thing they are going to get let off easy but, not so satisfied is the fact that they are no longer being tried as a child for crimes in juvenile courts. So questions that are ask frequently are: Does one or two years younger than 18 make much of a difference? Is it fair for one person, just seventeen years of age, to be tried in a juvenile court, receiving a lesser sentence for under than someone who is just 5 months older who committed the same crime? Are juveniles under the age of 18 fully qualified of being held responsible for their actions for what have taken placed or are all juveniles mentally unable of realizing what were their actions for what they did will have consequence after the fact? However, according to a research report by the School of law at the University of California, there is minimal, or no deterrence achieved through prosecution of minors as adults. According to the report, eighty-two percent of juveniles released from prisons in fifteen states were re-arrested (Scialabba, 2016).

Juveniles being tried as an adult. Youths are irrational, immature and continuously require parental figures to guide them and direct them positively towards changing their behavior. However, when incarcerated with adults, their guidance and protection are from criminals making them prone to negative influence. Thus, once in jail there is no going back, the various negative experiences is not a good thing when you in their like the assault, rape, and harassment pushes them to adopt similar bad behavior. In a bid to survive the jail house, they look for protection to help them out and in most instances end up joining gangs so they can feel safe and utilizing weapons to keep on them. Moreover, in adult prisons, children lack rehabilitative measures of counseling, education, and training (Castro, Muhammad, & Arthur, 2012, pp. P2).

Thus, upon release, the experiences and deficiencies of the system make it difficult for them to fit in and experience normal life. Hence, they revert to old behavior or worse that cost their freedom and eventually end up in prison again. It argues that individuals under eighteen are immature, irresponsible, highly susceptible to manipulation and capable of change.

Moreover, psychologists in agreement support the notion that minor’s mental development is not at its peak, hence, do fully grasp right and wrong. In this regard, the government prohibits minors from adult responsibilities such as smoking, drinking, voting and joining the military. Therefore, believing that they are not capable of the above activities and then holding them to the standards of adults is unfair and wrong, as it is clear that minors are adults (McCrea, 2008, pp.3). Furthermore, most of them commit criminal acts because of harmful as opposed to intent or because one of your friends doing something bad so you doing it do but you can make a big mistake and end up somewhere else. Thus, it is prejudicial to subject a child’s whole life to a long life of condemnation and suffering for mistakes; they did in their prime years.

Children are killed by there own kind which are children. Teens are killed by which have been repeatedly by teens. And still we refuse to punish them because ‘they are too young to understand that what they are doing is wrong.’ An excuse most heard from parents, it is also an excuse too often heard after lives are lost and ruined. Without a tougher punishment system, society is left with a high percentage of delinquents and a rising percentage of crime victims. Juvenile court systems have been a far cry from justice for many victims. Families of murder victims, rape targets and victims of other serious crimes have been abandoned without a sense of closure or protection. Some feel like their loss was left unacknowledged.

The Ethical and Legal Considerations

Indeed, in such a lenient juvenile system, victims are more often than not left unacknowledged. Most people agree with Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas: ‘The only way to treat the victim as a full human being—to fully honor the memory of the victim—is to punish the perpetrator. Since 1993, at least 43 states have passed laws making it easier for children to be tried as adults. A juvenile justice bill is currently awaiting final Congressional approval and contains similar measures for the federal system. Proposition 21 [which stiffened penalties for juvenile offenders], from last year’s [2000] California elections, was passed and, although it has stirred much opposition and controversy, it has molded the image that society will have no tolerance for crime. The cost of implementing such measures will never even reach the immeasurable cost of lives lost.

Some offenses may be forgiveable, but for extreme cases like murder, just punishment must be given to the offender. It is a way for a victim’s family to gain some peace or understanding, peace, especially since they cannot get their loved or they only child one who was taken from them back it just leaves a leap in your heart you can’t take back. Juvenile detention courts can give you many options and recommend counseling, but I feel like that not enough they are going to abuse the power they have such as, house arrest you can barely leave the house, curfews be in the house at a certain time mostly likely some of them don’t come in the house on time, and other forms of harsh punishment rather than giving a jail time let them sit and think about what they did. In adult courts judges, Have fewer choices or you going away for a long time, and sometimes the only option to choose is prison and that’s not a good place you want to be. Kids under the age of 18 are not perfect innocents. Many of them begin thinking and acting more maturely. Punishing them for their wrongdoings teaches them accountability, which they can bring with them until they grow old.

Conclusion

Thus, Juveniles should be tried as an adult, A child understand more than what they know and doing the wrong is not a good idea. Also, Juveniles should be tried because they know right from wrong and harming or killing something you have more than enough sense; Even if you are legal or not yet they should be tried as an adult. Prosecution of minors as adults represent a progress in today’s justice system. Today’s society, there are multiple action crimes going on. Over age Adults are not the only ones that does irresponsible commit crimes. One issue today is that juveniles offenses should be tried, They are old enough for the responsibility that comes behind the crimes they are committing; whether juvenile offenders should be tried as adults in criminal court. This is an old saying that is often by people that lives in neighborhoods used in this case of young juveniles committing crimes they know that are responsible for going to jail is “ If you are at age or Old enough to do the crime, then you are old enough for what you did to do the time for what you committed .” When you turn a certain age it over there is no going back one false move, Your life is done and you can be done. For example, stealing such as heavy shop lifting, breaking and entering, arrested, murder for something you didn’t do but you didn’t do it your friend it but its only evidence on you. At the end it falls on you or whoever did it things, Don’t fall easy in life for anyone. You can be tried as an adult a juvenile.

Reference

1. Arya, N. (2012). Key Facts: Youth in the justice system: youth crime. Campaign for Youth Justice, 1-2.
2. Equal Justice Initiative. (2017). Children in prisons: Deaths in prison. Retrieved October 12, 2017, from https://eji.org/children-prison/death-in-prison-sentences
3. McCrea, H. (2008). Juveniles Should Not Be Tried in Adult Courts. Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults? Gale Publishers, 2-4.
4. Scialabba, N. (2016). Children’s Rights Litigation: Should juveniles be charged as adults in the criminal justice system? American Bar Association, 1. Retrieved October 12, 2017, from https://www.americanbar.org/publications/litigation-committees/childrens-rights/articles/2016/should-juveniles-be-charged-as-adults.html
5. McLeod, S. (2011). Bandura – social learning theory. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html Miller, R. N., & Applegate, B. K. (2015).
6. Adult crime, adult time? Benchmarking public views on punishing serious juvenile felons. Criminal Justice Review, 40(2), 151- 168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734016814546039
7. Onifade, E., Wilkins, J., Davidson, W., Campbell, C., & Petersen, J. (2011). A https://jlc.org/issues/youth-tried-adults