There are worries about courts being too lenient and young juveniles turning into violent criminals. Some believe that labeling eighteen year olds as juveniles in the criminal justice system can aid in their transformation into productive citizens, as they may not completely comprehend the repercussions of their actions. There has been an observed threefold increase in the count of juvenile death penalties and life sentences without parole compared to fifteen years ago. It is crucial to acknowledge that youth are still undergoing development, similar to adults.
Officials often face challenging decisions and must make choices. I believe that all individuals who are under eighteen years old should be considered juveniles, and our Juvenile courts should prioritize rehabilitating young offenders. Although age should be a consideration, it should not be the only factor in determining how these youths are tried. In the United States, juveniles receive different treatment than adults in legal matters. However, historically children were once incarcerated alongside adults.
During this crucial time as a child, long prison terms and corporal punishment were widespread. Some children faced death sentences for crimes that would now be considered relatively minor. In the nineteenth century, the tradition of treating eighteen-year-olds as adults changed with the emergence of separate proceedings for adult and juvenile offenders. A refuge house for rehabilitating delinquent young offenders was established in New York City. The prevailing belief in 1825 was that children were less morally advanced and more capable of reform than adults (Schwartz Robert G.). This led to the spread of the system for separating adult and juvenile offenders to other states, with the implementation of separate hearings for juveniles. In 1899, Jane Addams played a pivotal role in establishing the first juvenile court in Chicago (Schwartz Robert G.). The primary purpose of these courts was to focus on the protection and rehabilitation of offenders, prioritizing their best interests. By 1925, almost all states had established juvenile courts. This expansion increased the number of juvenile courts and granted judges more discretion in determining final sentences for defendants. Judges were given this authority to fulfill a parental or guardian role for the country. While this freedom granted to judges made the proceedings less formal, maintaining formality is crucial when dealing with someone’s conviction and actions in court.Sometimes, juvenile courts hold hearings without having any juveniles present in order to rehabilitate them rather than sending them to adult prisons where they won’t have the opportunity to learn rehabilitation. However, what happens when it is time for those prisoners who have served twenty-five years?
During the 1950s and 1960s, there was legitimate criticism against Juvenile courts. Many observers of the system noticed that the courts were not taking enough action to prevent Juvenile crimes. A different group pointed out that certain aspects of the Juvenile Justice system infringed upon the rights of the defendants, such as not allowing them to have a lawyer present. Those who advocate for trying eighteen year olds as adults argue that Juveniles need to be deterred from committing crimes for the benefit of both Americans and themselves. It is claimed that Juvenile courts are too lenient and do not impose sufficiently severe sentences.
Transferring juvenile defendants to adult criminal court is the most effective method to ensure that they receive proper punishment if found guilty. If there isn’t a strict system in place to prevent them from committing more crimes, juveniles might continue growing into violent youth criminals. Physically separating these individuals from society will aid in stopping them from committing more crimes and give them a chance to reflect upon and comprehend their actions. Ultimately, the objective is to prepare these delinquents for reintegrating into society with enhanced opportunities for a brighter future.
Officials rely on typical criminal record patterns to identify an “escalator,” where a delinquent shows increasing involvement in criminal activities. This escalation prompts authorities to establish boundaries and enforce punishments or treatments. According to Paul Robinson, a former member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, trying fourteen-year-olds in adult courtrooms recognizes the ineffectiveness of juvenile justice in preventing teenage violence. The leniency of courts has proven insufficient in addressing teenage violence.
Statistics reveal that adolescents aged eighteen are more prone to committing violent crimes than individuals in other age groups. Particularly, those between the ages of sixteen and nineteen exhibit a higher prevalence of engaging in violent offenses compared to both younger and older individuals. Kent Marcus, the leader of the youth crime division at the Justice department, questions the notion that juvenile courts should handle all children differently from adults. Instead, he advocates for addressing the unique needs of young offenders within the framework of the Justice system.
Boot camps, John Dilution, National Center for Juvenile Justice, Donna Ratify, Juvenile Crime Control Act, and Operation Night Light have all expressed the need to take action to prevent youth criminals from engaging in violence. There is a growing concern that juvenile courts are being too lenient, resulting in delinquents transforming into criminals. It is crucial for the Juvenile defendants to understand the consequences of trying eighteen year olds as adults. Society has long recognized the distinction between adults and minors, and it is important to note that most of the Juveniles committing crimes come from disadvantaged communities and troubled households where crime is prevalent.
If juveniles are incarcerated, they will continue to engage in criminal activities without acquiring comprehension. Due to their limited cognitive capacity as compared to adults, treating them as such is not appropriate. The signatures of juveniles hold no validity since they are unable to make mature and responsible choices. This is partially due to their lack of life experience, as well as the fact that the brains of adolescents do not fully develop until at least 20 years old. As a researcher, I can attest that my own children, who are now 21 and 25, needed support in developing critical thinking skills.
While teaching my children during their teenage years, I found it challenging for them to grasp the lessons initially. However, over time, ranging from six months to a year, they eventually comprehended the concepts. This implies that their cognitive development synchronized with my teachings. Furthermore, teenagers have an immature prenatal cortex responsible for reasoning and judgment, as well as an incompletely developed cerebellum which controls impulses.
Without these two physical heartsickness that separate the men from the boys, teenagers can not possibly be expected to endure the same consequence as fully matured adults. Research shows that the rate at which Juvenile violators of the law turn their lives around as opposed to older violators is remarkable. With the use of rehabilitation, psychological guidance, and some punishment is efficient to teenagers who are convicted of crimes. Sentencing a twelve year old to life in prison Just seems morally unjust, especially when he has a high probability of turning his life around with some help.
I believe that the severity of the crime matters. In certain cases, I think that some children who commit extremely violent and atrocious crimes should receive harsher sentences. However, as the child grows older, I still believe in conducting psychological evaluations. Juveniles should be sentenced as juveniles because that is what they are. They should not be treated as adults because they cannot be held to the same level of accountability since they often lack awareness. My first argument is that juveniles are unable to actively participate in their own defense.
While young individuals may begin to understand their rights during adolescence, it usually takes longer and more life experience, as well as brain development, for this understanding to truly influence their comprehension. Differentiating between right and wrong is not equivalent to comprehending the lasting consequences of their actions. Numerous juveniles have limited positive interactions with figures of authority, making it challenging for them to trust that an adult in a professional role would favor them over other adults in a legal proceeding.
The primary objective of the Juvenile system is to rehabilitate and provide treatment, while the criminal system aims to administer punishment commensurate with the offense. Hence, my second argument asserts that rehabilitating offenders serves justice more effectively. Placing young criminals in adult prisons results in a surge of criminal behavior, heightened prison expenses, and escalated violence. Although convictions in adult criminal courts come with graver consequences, the court itself may pose challenges throughout the trial.
Most minors lack the reasoning skills to comprehend the expectations, requests, or obligations from the police, the prosecution, and the Judge. Even if a juvenile understands their rights, they may still lack the know-how to properly exercise them. This can create a difficult situation for juveniles treated as adults, considering that even adults often struggle to understand their own rights. Juveniles commonly make legal errors by failing to grasp the right to remain silent and wrongly believing they must speak in court.
It is not recommended for individuals to rely on a police officer or prosecutor for information about their legal status without the guidance of a defense attorney. The same caution applies when making or accepting plea deals, as they should only be done with the assistance of a defense attorney. For juveniles, it is also not advisable to waive their right to a public defender due to distrust of authority figures or belief that the defense attorney won’t help them.
Interestingly, life imprisonment sentences are being given to children as young as seven years old. In certain states, juveniles who commit crimes can even face the death penalty, with thirty-eight states allowing executions in such cases. Among these states, fifteen set the minimum age at sixteen and five require offenders to be seventeen at the time of the crime.
Texas stands out by having numerous death row inmates and accounting for thirteen out of eighteen executions in Texas, Virginia, and Oklahoma combined.
Fundamentally, this issue arises from parents failing to instill proper values and respect for authority figures. As a solution, separate juvenile courts have been established to assume the role that parents should have fulfilled.
Rather than using the adult system to punish young people, a separate Juvenile court aims to rehabilitate them by taking a moralistic approach and assisting them in learning values. While there are numerous pros and cons of trying eighteen year olds as adults, there exists a clear distinction between young children of eighteen years old or younger and adults. Juveniles have been proven to demonstrate an inability to comprehend serious criminal actions and the subsequent consequences and legal procedures.
The brain’s full development occurs at the age of twenty-five or later. While adults face punishment for crimes, juveniles are sent to Juvenile hall to become more productive members of society. Numerous alternatives exist to trying eighteen year olds as adults; for instance, in Massachusetts, it is illegal to do so. However, there have been discussions among officials regarding regulations that mandate juvenile attendance in school and require them to meet certain health and progress criteria.
