The Juvenile Justice System
The amount of teens entering the juvenile justice system every year is very alarming. Some believe that the number of teens entering the system each year and the high number of repeat violent offenders can be attributed to the lacks sometimes even laughable punishments handed down by judges. Since teens are tried differently from adults and so many rules and regulations must be adhered to, are the law makers hands tied Due to public outcry and a need for change to the juvenile justice system reform is on the horizon, but what type of reform is needed to correct an outdated justice system This paper looks at the strengths and weaknesses of the juvenile judicial system. Introduction
Juvenile criminals have been a national issue in the American society for many years. The concern over young individuals being involved in major criminal acts has been shared by different stakeholders including the federal and the states governments. There concern over juvenile offenders has peaked in the last two decades of the 20th century which has created the need to reconsider how juvenile criminals are treated by the judicial systems and the best ways of dealing with these underage offenders. However, although juvenile delinquency has significantly reduced since late 1990s, a solution to young people involving themselves in major crimes has not been reached. Since the establishment of juvenile judicial systems in the early 20th century, a good number of young Americans have been tried in the criminal system. Moreover, today a good number of young people are subjected to judicial systems due to repeated crimes which have attracted heated debate of whether these juvenile criminal systems really serve the intended purpose.
Juvenile Judicial Systems
Juvenile judicial system is a separate judicial system in the United States which was established in the early 20th century to take care of the interests of juvenile offenders. The main goal of juvenile judicial system is to protect juvenile offenders from the destructive sentences in criminal courts and giving room for rehabilitation of the offender based on the juveniles conditions and special needs. The system focuses of the juvenile offender as an individual with special needs and the assistance that can be offered to the offender. On the other hand, the criminal courts focus on the criminal act the individual has committed. The proceedings of a juvenile court are therefore informal where the judge acts in the best interest of the juvenile offender. Initially, the juvenile judicial proceedings were not open to public and the records were confidential to prevent the interference of rehabilitation and reintegration of the juvenile offender into the society. The criminal courts systems were therefore very different from the juvenile judicial systems in many ways. The language used in juvenile judicial system was quite different where the juvenile offenders were charged with delinquencies and not criminal acts. Moreover, the juvenile were never declared guilty of the offence but were adjudicated delinquent. Rather than the courts sending them to prison, they were sent to rehabilitation and training institutions or reformatory schools.
From the initial practices of the juvenile judicial system, there were tensions on social welfare as opposed to social controls. Tension of what should be given more priority between the interests of the juvenile offender and the punishment for the offence committed, incapacitation and protection of the society from the criminal acts has always been an issue when dealing with juvenile offenders. This tension has changed over time with various changes in the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts and the changing society and it is still a major issue today.
In a report released in 2005, the startling data of the number of young people was revealed. The report claimed that the United States judicial system deals with over two and half million cases of juvenile offenders in a year. This is a very large number of children being accused in American courts. The figure indicates that almost five thousand children are charged with delinquency every day. This worrying statistics have attracted a heated debate on whether the juvenile judicial system is able to deter American youths who are about ten percent of the American population from committing crimes. According to the report, it was estimated that over fifty percent of all American youths will end up being tried in the juvenile courts if the trend continued. Two thirds of those tried would be convicted delinquent. Most of the juveniles adjudicated to residential placement are incarcerated for long enough such that they spend their early adult life in the facilities which may negatively or positively affect their lives.
Over the years, the process of graduating to adult status has changed significantly. The transition from high school life through college to the working life has transformed dramatically. For this reason, many young people are finding it hard to get into their feet which make them get involved in criminal activities easily. For individuals who have passed through the juvenile judicial system, the process of attaining adult status becomes even more challenging. Very few juvenile who have been incarcerated at one point in their life attain a high school diploma. In 2005, the percentage of juvenile who have ever been incarcerated by the juvenile judicial system was estimated to be about 11 percent against the national average of 74 percent in the same year. Life becomes harder for those released from the correctional facilities since only about a third of them either goes back to school or get employed after they are released. A youth who has ever been charged with delinquency in a juvenile court is more likely to be unemployed, become a dependant adult or have an unstable family. Moreover, there are many cases of these youths being arrested and charged again at some stage of life.
The juvenile judicial system was formed on the basis that children are different from adult and should not be treated equally as adults in the criminal systems in case they are involved in criminal activities. They are not culpable and competent to be tried in a normal criminal court. The juvenile judicial system was therefore supposed to serve as a surrogate parent. The original intention of the juvenile judicial system was not mare punishment but was also expected to offer a second chance to the delinquent youth through rehabilitation and make them better members of the society. With the changes in the society however, the juvenile judicial system has changed significantly shifting from rehabilitative system to a more punitive system. Although punitive measure against violent crimes cannot be argued out, many people are for the argument that it is unfair to the importance of rehabilitation in any case involving juvenile delinquency. The need to strike a balance between punishment and treatment of the juvenile offender is the best approach in dealing with cases of children turning into criminals.
In the last two centuries of the 20th century, and more so in the 1980s, there was a high increase in the number of juveniles involved in violent crimes all over the United States. In response to this trend, there were some legal reforms in different states which aimed at changing the approach of cases involving violent juvenile offences. These was necessitated by the need for juveniles involved in serious crimes such as murder to be subjected to more punitive sentences for the safety of the society. This diverted the rehabilitation and diversion oriented juvenile judicial systems to punishment oriented approach. This change from rehabilitation oriented to punishment oriented juvenile judicial system was adopted by seventeen states where the purpose of juvenile judicial system was redefined to include the society welfare and accountability of the offender. The changes were based on the ideal belief that the current system was too lenient on juvenile offenders who involve themselves in serious and violent crimes and were a security threat to the society just like other adult criminals.
Though in the United States there have different juvenile judicial systems, they vary from states, counties and municipalities. The federal system however had jurisdiction over some criminal cases such as criminal acts committed on Indian reservation or other public places like in a national park. The federal juvenile judicial system is also distinct. However, there are some restrictions which are provided by the juvenile justice and delinquency act. This act requires that juvenile offenders must be detained or incarcerated in different facilities with adult offenders. Despite the regulation of this act, the laws in a particular state oversee the structure of the juvenile judicial systems and rehabilitation facilities in the state. However, the differences between juvenile judicial systems in different states are not very wide and they are similar in many ways. In many states, different legal reforms in the interest of the general public and the offenders have affected violent juvenile offenders where the law makes it easy and some times mandatory for a juvenile offender to be tried as an adult offender. The law in this case changes the decision making process where the prosecutor decides where they try the juvenile offender and the judge has a wide range of sentence options. Moreover, an option of juvenile try proceedings andor criminal records may become open to the public in some of these cases.
Changing the law concerning the trial of juvenile offender has however not translated into direct changes in the legal practices. There are various factors that limit the trial of juvenile offenders in the normal criminal systems. These factors include the belief that a good number of juvenile offenders can be treated and rehabilitated and be integrated back to the society without subjected to punitive criminal sentences. Tougher, incarceration measures of juvenile offenders stress the judicial systems budget and cause overcrowding in facilities. Moreover, research on best practices in juvenile judicial systems indicate tough penalties on juvenile offenders have little gains on reducing recidivism among juvenile if there are no attempts to incorporate rehabilitation and treatment in the process of incapacitation. It should also be noted that in some cases, practices in the juvenile justice systems are not in line with what was imagined when the laws were formulated. An alternative juvenile judicial system has for example been under experiment in some jurisdictions where restorative justice has been proposed. Restorative justice is different from the traditional model which emphasizes on rehabilitation of the offender with the current changes that advocate for punishment and accountability of the offence. Restorative justices main focus is the welfare of all parties involved that is the victims of the offence, the juvenile offender as well as the society.
Over the years, there have been many changes in the juvenile justice systems but varying structures in different states, difference in information on case proceedings and incarceration of young offenders and little national data makes it difficult to analyze the effectiveness of juvenile judicial systems. Although some states analyzes and publish information about their judicial systems including juvenile cases, in majority of the states, no data is readily available for comparative study. However, policies related to juvenile crimes in the United States are generally moving towards treating young offenders as adults. Despite this, it is indisputable that some young people grow and live in settings that do not allow proper development into adults who are acceptable in the community. These setting make them more likely to be delinquent as compared to other children who grow in a supportive environment. Punishing these juveniles punitively for their delinquency rather than providing rehabilitation services has been viewed by many as unfair. Laws that directly affect juvenile delinquency and juvenile judicial system should always consider the development of the juvenile. The law must provide a balance between providing the right environment for the development of the child and the social desire for criminals to be accountable for their acts. Although the juvenile judicial system is based on the fact that juvenile offenders need support and education to develop into better members of the society, all criminal activities irrespective of who commits them should be condemned.
Juvenile crimes are largely influenced by cognitive aspects of the childs life and the social features of the surrounding. For this reason, effective juvenile judicial system should also consider these factors. For example, sociologist and human development scholars argue that children below seven years of age have not reached the age of reason and cannot devise a criminal intent which makes them not accountable for their delinquency. In common practice, juvenile judicial systems do not involve trial of children below ten years of age. Moreover, cases of children below ten years being arrested are very rare. However, youth aged over 16 years are considered to have developed enough cognitive abilities and experienced enough to be accountable for intentional criminal acts. There is no argument in a seventeen years old teenager being accountable for criminal acts he or she has committed especially if it was a violent crime. The most controversial issue has been how to try offenders between the age of ten years and sixteen years. Many public policies such as education policies, medical care and alcohol control policies support the belief that teenagers have not attained the status of an adult based on their capacity.
Despite there being a juvenile criminal system in the United States, the system has not been effective in deterring young people from committing crimes. This has been the trend in other countries such as Canada and European countries which have similar systems. A good number of young people being tried in juvenile courts have previously attracted arguments on the effectiveness of the rehabilitation facilities provided by the systems. The number of serious criminal acts involving juvenile offenders has increased since late 1980s, which have caused a lot of worries among criminologists. There is a common belief in the society that the young people of the modern generation are more violent and can be controlled while other people believe that the juvenile judicial systems are inadequate in dealing with violent adolescence and is in fact doing harm to them. In reaction to this inadequacy of the juvenile judicial system, the law makers have made these systems more punitive and provide provisions where juvenile criminals can be transferred to the normal criminal systems. The data available on the level of violent criminal acts among the juveniles form the basis of changes in these laws.
Today, young people commit more crimes that they did twenty years ago. Crimes committed by young people today are more violent than it could have been imagined when the juvenile criminal courts were established. There are many cases of children assaulting other children in schools or public places and even more surprising cases where children physically attack their parents and even kill them have been reported. There is also a trend where a young person is repeatedly committing the same crime despite efforts to provide rehabilitation services. The trend is however more prevalent in low income areas and areas where adult crime is high creating the link between juvenile delinquency and the influence of the environment.
Whether the rehabilitation of the juvenile offender will gain fruits or not depends on whether the child leaves the juvenile judicial system mature enough and having acquired skills to face the challenges of life. Otherwise, the individual will leave the system more hardened or with no abilities to deal with the increased challenges of life and thus is more likely to be a criminal in the future. A good juvenile judicial system will provide rehabilitation services and give skills which can secure the victim a job after release because he is unlikely to go back to school. The basic assumption by the public that people mature with age is not necessarily true. The development of individual autonomy, ability to socialize with others and self direction which are indications of maturity are dependent on the environment to which the individual is exposed to. The ideal environment where an individual can develop into maturity is in a family of supportive parents, right peers, good role models and the general society. When a young individual is charged with delinquency and put under juvenile judicial system, normal development of the individual into maturity may be arrested. The system may not provide the best environment to aid development of the individual into an adult and in many cases have had a negative influence.
Conclusion
The juvenile judicial system was established over a century ago with an aim of taking care of the delinquent youths welfare. The system was formed to protect young people from the punitive sentences in the normal judicial system. However, the rate of increase in juvenile crimes including violent crimes has been very high over the last two decades. Moreover, many young people going through the system have been reported to have had a criminal life after release. The factors have attracted a heated debate on whether the juvenile judicial system is of any help to juvenile offenders. The ability of the juvenile judicial system to deter juvenile delinquency or rehabilitate delinquent juvenile has been a controversial issue leading to changes in the judicial system. Therefore the leniency of the judges in the juvenile judicial system contributes to the high number of delinquent youths.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment