As the pace of society continues to increase in swiftness, there is a need to reexamine the fleeting process of youthful offenders within the juvenile justice system. The approach to youth crime has been seen as delinquent acts committed by persons under the age of 18, but many are beginning to argue whether we should in fact have a juvenile justice system in the first place. Why not convict youths as adults, especially if the crime they commit took extensive planning such as an organized murder like the Columbine High School shooting? You don’t need to have a criminal justice degree to understand these issues. All in all, the political views regarding the juvenile justice system in America continues to capitalize as well as the public’s.
The antisocial or illegal behaviors of children and adolescents tend to be at the root of juvenile delinquency. The span of theories on their causes however are hard to place. Despite analyzing information on what causes youthful offenders to commit crimes for further understanding the evolution of the adult criminal, criminologists and other professionals believe that there needs to be a better way to process juveniles for the sake of society.
In an article by the Urban Institute advised that the justice system could use a more cohesive approach by lawmakers, judges and practitioners to stop the fighting over how politics have hobbled delinquency jurisdiction, and instead, should treat all offenders as criminals. A fully integrated criminal court system is quite capable of processing all offenders, both young and old. It is largely a question of protecting the rights of youth without sacrificing public safety, while still ensuring that youthful offenders are afforded every opportunity to mend their ways for the purpose of becoming viable citizens within society.
Case law has apparently sanctioned enhancing criminal court sentencing by introducing juvenile court adjudications, and three states (Texas, Louisiana and California) currently allow such adjudications to stand as first and second “strikes” when weighed against the adult offender. This presents a dichotomy that essentially abolishes the agreement allowing the juvenile court to exist in the first place.
In a publication from the Legislative Analyst’s Office in California, juvenile crime trends are similar to that of adults, with the majority of arrests being misdemeanor offenses – not felonies. Given that the primary focus of the juvenile court system is on rehabilitation rather than punishment, county and state facilities are geared toward education, counseling and treatment for juvenile offenders. Recommendations are a collection of input from probation department staff that provide juvenile court judges with the information they need to decide the fate of the offender. Placement is the result of a number of factors from the offense to the criminal sophistication, including prior history, and the capacity of the treatment facility.
As defined by the League of Women Voters of California, “good juvenile courts function on a socio-legal basis where the constitutional rights of children and parents are not abridged, and where the purpose of the court is therapeutic and preventive, rather than retributive and punitive.”
Unfortunately, the system is challenged by antiquated methods as it struggles to process too many children without sufficient support; lacking oversight in a system that all too often fails the very children it seeks to protect. Maintaining this separate delinquency jurisdiction of the juvenile court system may have once sufficed to maximize a young person’s chances of assimilating into a law-abiding community. These benefits are not quite as certain in today’s world.
Reactive justice will only lead to the continued disappointing results, disruption to families, and perpetual delay in ever reaching a pro-active approach to delivering a true sense of justice. While there have been measured decreases in violence on the part of juveniles in recent years, why not take this moment in time to reflect on whether this separate system of justice is even sustainable? With the current diversification of courts that exist in today’s adult court system, it is possible to achieve an effective and understandable intake process with a fair and efficient judicial system that may possess a diverse set of services and sanctions that will suit the diversity of offenders.
(As a prospective law student in Washington state, Marie Owens is particularly interested in criminal law and gender issues. She writes to promote criminal justice education, and teaches martial arts in her spare time.)
Follow Trench!