Controversy over the treatment of juveniles in the United States justice system has long been a controversy within this nation. The treatment of juveniles within the United States justice system is a multi-faceted issue. Some of the main issues which are currently controversial are the ages at which juveniles are being tried as adults, whether it should be allowed to sentence a juvenile to life without parole, whether a juvenile has a developed enough brain to understand all the things at hand, and how the federal and state governments interact with the juvenile justice system. Throughout the years, juveniles have been allowed to be tried in the justice system as adults for crimes that are considered serious. Juveniles who committed …show more content…
crimes were tried as adults all the way back to before the eighteenth century before the Roman Catholic Church outlawed such practices. There are many arguments as to why juveniles should not be allowed to be tried as adults. The most paramount argument is the cognitive development of the human brain within a juvenile compared to the far more cognitively developed adult brain. Wallace Mylniec of Georgetown University states his findings in which he states that the human brain is not fully developed until around the age of twenty five. He says that although juveniles have cognitive abilities at ages as young as sixteen, their rationale and decision making abilities are not up to par with those of further developed adults. This case showed how important neuroscience is to field of juvenile justice in showing that the juvenile mind is far different than the adult mind. This took a legal turn when the Supreme court said that juveniles were not as blameworthy for a crime as an adult would be in the 1998 case of Thompson vs. Oklahoma. Although juveniles may be charged as adults, the renewal of an act by the name of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act gave funds to prevent juveniles but stipulated that the states which took the funds had to separate juveniles and adults even if the juveniles had been tried as adults. This allowed juveniles to not be subject to the the same conditions as an adult would be subject too which was a step in the right direction for the juvenile justice system in order to prevent some abuse that seemingly has become prominent within the justice system. Whether it be the argument of differences in mental development or abuse, there are many arguments against sentencing juvenile criminals as if they were adults. Another topic of controversy within the juvenile justice system in the United States is the concept of sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without giving them any possibility to go up for parole in the future.
One of the arguments against juveniles being sentenced to life without parole is that they would never have the opportunity to show that they made a mistake and that the mistake would not define their whole lives. The history of this issue is not only a social issue, but also a legal issue in recent years. In 2010 in a landmark case entitled Graham vs. Florida, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that went on to remove the ability for juveniles under the age of eighteen to be handed a life sentence with no chance of parole for any cases that were not considered capital offenses. That case however, was not the only case to rule on the issue of juveniles being handed life sentences with no chance of parole. The other landmark case on this particular topic came in 2012 in a case entitled Miller vs. Alabama. This case set a precedent in which no juvenile could be given a life sentence with no chance of parole regardless of whether the offense committed by the juvenile was deemed to be a capital offense or not. Currently, a case scheduled to be heard this fall by the United States Supreme Court will take this issue even further than the previous court decisions. This case stems from an appeal made by a man by the name of Henry Montgomery who is appealing his life sentence without a chance of parole that he received in 1963 at the young age of 17 based on the decision in Miller vs. Alabama. Montgomery believes that the decision of the court in Miller vs. Alabama should retroactively lift his life sentence with no chance of parole. Also, Supreme Courts in fourteen states have ruled that Miller vs. Alabama would in fact retroactively apply to juveniles sentenced to life without parole before the United States Supreme Court decision. The
Supreme Court has also made statements regarding the constitutionality of juveniles saying that they are different in terms of constitutionality than adults and therefore should not be subjected to the same penalties that an adult would be subjected to. Neuroscience has also started to play a major role in the juvenile system. For instance, in the Supreme Court case Roper vs. Simmons, the court ruled that it was a cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a juvenile criminal to death. This came after the American Medical Association wrote a brief to the court showing that neuroscience has shown that juveniles do not have the mental capacity and ability that an adult would have and therefore they should not be punished for something that may have been linked to a lack of development in the brain. Neuroscience once again became important in President Obama’s presidential term when he started a task force to work on bioethical issues within the criminal justice system and made a plea for the juvenile justice and overall criminal justice systems to take neuroscience into account when conducting proceedings or anything of that matter. Neuroscience has and will continue to play a large part in the debate of juvenile justice. Another large factor on the debate of juvenile justice is the intervention of both the federal and state government systems and their influence on juvenile justice policies. For instance, both House and Senate lawmakers are pushing for the reopening of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Protection. This is to ensure that funding is received for the justice system to ensure that juveniles are not being abused while incarcerated and also to provide the juveniles the ability to rehabilitate in order to prevent future crimes by those same individuals. On the state level, fourteen states have outlawed life sentences with no chances of parole while seven states have vowed that they would not adopt such policies in their respective states for juveniles. Also, in California, Governor Brown signed a new bill which would allow for a differentiated parole process for those originally charged as juveniles. In New York, the state legislature is pushing to move the age at which a juvenile can be held criminally responsible to the age of eighteen rather than the previous ages of sixteen and seventeen. This comes after reported cases of abuse on juvenile inmates at Rikers Prison just outside of New York City and repeated attempts by juvenile advocates to assure that juveniles be treated properly when incarcerated. Both the federal government and certain state governments, have and will continue to have impacts on the juvenile system and how it is run. The Juvenile Justice system is a complex bundle of issues. Whether it be the age at which someone be considered an adult within the justice system, the complexity of the juvenile brain and the stage of brains development at the time of juvenile status, or both the states and federal governments interventions in the introduction of new juvenile justice policies. The functions of the juvenile justice system are no doubt something that will be contested for a long time to come due to many advocates for juveniles as well as always changing research in the field of juvenile justice.
The book “No Matter How Loud I Shout” written by Edward Humes, looks at numerous major conflicts within the juvenile court system. There is a need for the juvenile system to rehabilitate the children away from their lives of crime, but it also needs to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous of its juveniles, causing one primary conflict. Further conflict arises with how the court is able to administer proper treatment or punishment and the rights of the child too due process. The final key issue is between those that call for a complete overhaul of the system, and the others who think it should just be taken apart. On both sides there is strong reasoning that supports each of their views, causing a lot of debate about the juvenile court system.
Today, the court system in this country is divided into two groups when comparing juveniles and adults. One is the Adult Criminal Justice System, and the other is the Juvenile Justice System. The terminology can be very different between the two systems. For instance; if an adult is arrested, they will be subject to a bail hearing. If a juvenile is arrested they must go through a detention hearing. Adults have trials which can be decided by a judge or jury. Juveniles go through a fact finding hearing and don’t receive verdicts because they are adjudicated. “They are not found guilty, but delinquent or involved” (Komiscruk). Another difference between the two is that juvenile court rooms are usually closed to the public, which includes the media. Their records are often confidential, protecting children from carrying the burdens of their delinquent activity into adulthood. Also, their records are supposed to be sealed. But what happens when a juvenile’s criminal case is transferred to an adult court? Are the guidelines or rules different from any other adult offender? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the sentencing guidelines?
Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is entirely eliminating the use of the life without parole sentence for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the crime being charged.
In the last 42 years little to no changes have been made to correct the standards that govern punitive measures towards juvenile delinquency. Today juvenile law is governed by state and many states have enacted a juvenile code. However, in numerous cases, juveniles are transferred to adult court when juvenile courts waive or relinquish jurisdiction. Adolescents should not be tried in the adult court system or sentenced to adult penitentiary's on account of: teen brains are not mature which causes a lack of understanding towards the system, incarceration in an adult facility increases juvenile crime, and children that are sentenced to adult prison are vulnerable to abuse and rape.
The historical development of the juvenile justice system in the United States is one that is focused on forming and separating trying juveniles from adult counterparts. One of the most important aspects is focusing on ensuring that there is a level of fairness and equality with respect to the cognitive abilities and processes of juveniles as it relates to committing crime. Some of the most important case legislation that would strengthen the argument in regard to the development of the juvenile justice system is related to the reform of the justice system during the turn of the 19th century. Many juveniles were unfortunately caught in the crosshairs of being tried as adults and ultimately receiving punishments not in line with their ability to understand their actions or be provided a second chance.
There has always been controversies as to whether juvenile criminals should be tried as adults or not. Over the years more and more teenagers have been involved in committing crimes. In some cases the juries have been too rough on the teens. Trying teens as adults can have a both positive and negative views. For example, teens that are detained can provide information about other crimes, can have an impact in social conditions, and serve as experience; however, it can be negative because teens are still not mature enough for that experience, they are exposed to adult criminals; and they will lose out on getting an education.
Juvenile Justice Juvenile justice is the decision whether or not to charge a juvenile as an adult. When a juvenile is charged as an adult, they are sentenced to long prison terms and sometimes life. In 2012 two groups of judges came together, one group believes that Juveniles should be allowed to be sentenced to life in prison and the other group believes that Juveniles should not be allowed to be sentenced to life in prison. I agree with the group of judges that believe that juveniles should not be sentenced to life in prison. Age is a factor in why juveniles should not be sentenced to life in prison.
This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.
In 1899, the nation’s first juvenile court for youth under the age of 16 was established in Chicago to provide rehabilitation rather than punishment. By 1925, following the Chicago model, all but two states had juvenile courts whose goals were to turn youth into productive citizens utilizing treatment that included warnings, probation, and training school confinement(Cox et al. 2014, p.2). Treatment lasted until the child was “cured” or turned 21. Although judges spoke with the offending children and decided upon the punishment, the lack of established rules and poor rehabilitation led to unfair treatment. In 1967 “ U.S. Supreme Court case of In re Gault held that juveniles were entitled to the same constitutional due process rights as adults, beginning a national reform in juvenile justice and the system was repaired to afford children many of the same rights that adults have in court” (Cox et al. 2014, p.4). Also, state legislatures passed laws to crack down on juvenile crime, as recently, states have attempted strike a balance in their approach to juvenile justice systems as research suggests that locking youth away in large, secure juvenile facilities is ineffective treatment towards different genders in which it doesn’t provide appropriate rehabilitation.
Juveniles deserve to be tried the same as adults when they commit certain crimes. The justice systems of America are becoming completely unjust and easy to break through. Juvenile courts haven’t always been known to the everyday person.
A deep look into juveniles in adult prisons. Touch bases on several smaller issues that contribute to juveniles being in and effects of adult prisons. The United States Bureau of Prisons handles two hundred and thirty-nine juveniles and their average age is seventeen. Execution of juveniles, The United States is one of only six countries to execute juveniles. There are sixty-eight juveniles sitting on death row for crimes committed as juveniles. Forty-three of those inmates are minorities. People, who are too young to vote, drink alcohol, or drive are held to the same standard of responsibility as adults. In prisons, they argue that the juveniles become targets of older, more hardened criminals. Brian Stevenson, Director of the Alabama Capital Resource Center said, “We have totally given up in the idea of reform of rehabilitation for the very young. We are basically saying we will throw those kids away. Leading To Prison Juvenile Justice Bulletin Report shows that two-thirds of juveniles apprehended for violent offenses were released or put on probation. Only slightly more than one-third of youths charged with homicide was transferred to adult criminal court. Little more than one out of every one hundred New York youths arrested for muggings, beatings, rape and murder ended up in a correctional institution. Another report showed a delinquent boy has to be arrested on average thirteen times before the court will act more restrictive than probation. Laws began changing as early as 1978 in New York to try juveniles over 12 who commit violent crimes as adults did. However, even since the laws changed only twenty percent of serious offenders served any time. The decision of whether to waive a juven...
An ethical problem that exists in the field of criminal justice is the incarceration of juveniles. While juvenile incarceration has been decreasing over the past decade, it is still an ethical dilemma that many criminal justice professionals will come across. Juveniles’ brains are not fully developed, incarceration is used when not appropriate to fit the problem, and some populations are over-represented in the criminal justice system.
Today?s court system is left with many difficult decisions. One of the most controversial being whether to try juveniles as adults or not. With the number of children in adult prisons and jails rising rapidly, questions are being asked as to why children have been committing such heinous crimes and how will they be stopped. The fact of the matter is that it is not always the children's fault for their poor choices and actions; they are merely a victim of their environment or their parents. Another question asked is how young is too young. Children who are too young to see an R rated film unaccompanied are being sent to adult prisons. The only boundaries that seem to matter when it comes to being an adult are laws that restrain kids from things such as alcohol, pornography, and other materials seen as unethical. Children that are sent to adult prison are going to be subjected to even more unprincipled ideas and scenes. When children can be sent to jail for something as minor as a smash and grab burglary, the judicial system has errors. The laws that send juveniles to adult prisons are inhumane, immoral, and unjust. Kids are often incompetent, which leads to unfair trials. Adult prisons are also very dangerous for minors, and in many cases this leads to more juvenile crimes.
The United States has been affected by a number of crimes committed by juveniles. The juvenile crime rate has been increasing in recent years. Everyday more juveniles commit crimes for various reasons. They act as adults when they are not officially adults. There is a discussion about how juveniles should be punished if they commit heinous crimes. While many argue that juveniles who commit serious crimes, such as murder, should be treated as adults, the fact is, juveniles under the age of eighteen, are not adults, and should not be treated as such.
Children commit adult crimes. The problem is how do we punish them? Should they be treated in juvenile facilities, or punished with adult criminals? In some states, you are considered to be an adult at 17 years old, therefore, as criminals get placed “in adult prisons for more sophisticated training in violent crimes and victimization.”(Pg. 637)