To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
The separation between juveniles and adult offenders has existed for the last 100 years. In America and across the globe, the line distinguishing the two sets of offenders occurs within different jurisdictions with a wide range of legislation as justification. The American historical version of juvenile separation stems from the common law of England which controlled the American colonies. Psychologists recommend this preferential treatment of juveniles mainly because they lack the requisite level of maturity, decision-making skills, thought processes, wisdom, and experience of adult offenders.
However, with the current situation where juveniles are heavily involved in terrorist activities and continue to partake in grievous criminal offenses, this policy must be reviewed to guarantee accountability and welfare of minors.
Shifting from the policy separating juveniles fails to acknowledge the lack of behavioral maturity in juvenile offenders. For instance, a teenager is still experiencing growth in various aspects of their life and may fail to appreciate the repercussions of their actions fully. The decision to prosecute them together with adult offenders eliminates the option of reforming their behavior.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Crime
5 (204)
“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”
Teenage behavior is usually fluid, increasing the chances of molding them appropriately (Edwards, Cordell, & Jones, 2018). The probability of reforming a teenage offender is much higher than it might be for an adult offender. With the right circumstances, accountability, and administrative programs, the probability of reforming juvenile behavior increases tenfold.
Trying juveniles within the adult judicial system and placing them with the general prison population insinuates that the society, as a collective, has given up on the youth.
It shows that despite the grievous nature of their offenses, society chooses to neglect their plight. This negligence leaves no room for any future policy formulations since juveniles do not have the emotional maturity to handle such levels of neglect. Notably, the possibility of salvaging juvenile offenders despite how horrible or gruesome their offenses were exists (Edwards et al., 2018). Therefore, these juveniles can undergo rehabilitation and become productive members of the community. Overlooking the predicament of juveniles by treating them as adults is a mistake because this decision hinges on the nature of the offense and fails to foresee their potential for change.
The victims of juvenile crimes though aggrieved at the time of the offense would instead predict better outcomes for them. Notably, an ideal situation would be a juvenile graduating from college ten years after committing an offense rather than rotting within the prison system. For instance, when a person falls victim to a gunshot from a teenager, over time, the natural expectation is that they will develop the capacity to forgive the offender (Edwards et al., 2018). The system should install mechanisms that allow the teenage offender to suffer the consequences of their actions but still be transformed. Proper rehabilitation increases the opportunity to achieve their ambitions whether educational or otherwise. Rehabilitation allows them to reintegrate back into the community. The policy of separating juveniles and adults prevents them from falling under the influence of adult prisoners. Adult association introduces young offenders to elements of criminality where they commit crimes, lengthening incarceration periods and limiting the chances of freedom and eventual reintegration.
Thus far, positive outcomes have emerged with the juvenile court system. Nonetheless, there have been different perspectives regarding the separation of juveniles and adult offenders. While psychologists argue that juveniles are not fully accountable for their behaviors, a good argument for abolishing the juvenile system altogether warrants discussion. Overturning the concept of delinquency where the belief is that the youth lack awareness of their actions may be a major flaw within the judicial system (Schlossman, 2016). Handling their cases within a separate court system warrants the abolishment debate as well.
Overturning the concept of delinquency does not necessarily constitute sending juveniles to the adult prison system or probation services. Such an abolishment involves shifting the responsibility for the courts handling delinquency cases. It creates the possibility for legislators across different states to formulate the appropriate policies to govern the situation. They must decide the specific type of court to handle cases involving young violators of the law. Alternatively, the decision involves assessing the present situation of defining violations of the law as criminal actions (Schlossman, 2016). The most vital aspect of examination explores whether it is possible to apply a different classification for juvenile crime and subsequently trying them within the criminal court system.
Juvenile and criminal courts depend on the bargaining process for case outcomes. It creates a problem for developing individualized dispositions. Many reforms within the criminal justice system, though instituted with the right intentions, blur the idea for the need for separation of juvenile and criminal court systems. Rationalizing the process that creates this separation is an even more significant challenge. The restriction of judicial discretion means that the authority of juvenile courts is slowly waning, disappearing, and becoming more diluted. Although numerous reforms increased the judicial powers of the courts, they also inhibited their ability to provide interventions for juvenile offenders in a comprehensive and personalized manner (Schlossman, 2016). Given the reduction in the powers of the juvenile court systems and the challenges experienced in enforcing their verdicts, perhaps the idea of abolishing the entire system is feasible.
Maintaining the juvenile courts does not seem to be cost effective. The system imposes some costs on the youth. For instance, it fails to achieve its original intention of rehabilitating offenders and facilitating the process of integrating them back into the community to reduce the stigma experienced (Schlossman, 2016). The existence of a juvenile system also allows numerous agencies dedicated to the welfare of youth to ignore the concerning numbers of teenage offenders extracted from the system and subsequently tried as adults. As a result, the youths incur enormous costs. Since the juvenile court system has not shown proof of sustaining itself in cost-effective ways, eliminating the system warrants consideration.
The recent events involving suicide bombings and terrorism have increased public outcry, especially when the offenders are juveniles. The possible impact of abolishing the traditional separation between juveniles and adults requires detailed contemplation. Of particular concern is the juvenile’s lack of psychological maturity to appreciate the consequences of their actions. They do not have the emotional capacity to contend with situations where the community abandons them, and the justice system tries them as adults. The severity of sentences sometimes hinges on how the aggrieved feel about the impact of a young offender’s criminal action. Over time, the harsh reactions might dissipate, allowing them to see them as helpful members of the society. Since juvenile courts impose costs thus losing their original powers, policy formulations that merge the separate judicial systems must be explored. Juvenile offenders enjoy protection through children rights, and government institutions and mechanisms must ensure that this remains the case.
References
Edwards, T., Cordell, L., & Jones, B. (2018). From both sides of the bench - The reasons for treating juveniles differently. Frontline. PBS. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/bench/different.html
Schlossman, Michael B. (2015). Franklin E. Zimring and David S. Tanenhaus (eds.): Choosing the future for American juvenile justice. Punishment & Society, 17(4), 532-534.
Juveniles And Adult Offenders. (2022, May 23). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/juveniles-and-adult-offenders-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
