In any case, it is obtrusively self-evident and deductively demonstrated that kids don't have similar degree of intellectual advancement as grown-ups. One approach to think about this distinction, is by dissecting how kids measure and oversee feelings. It is commonplace of a kid to partake in practices that are against their wellbeing, particularly when set off by bad feelings. This is obvious when a kid selects to lash out, maybe at companions or authority figures, when angered or tragic. The youngster might utilize brutality, unseemly language, and actual self-damage to communicate these feelings. Moreover, kids come up short fair and square of intellectual advancement that fortifies wisdom when simply deciding.

This difficulty credits to their powerlessness to totally comprehend and interaction how much their activities might cause outcomes. This marvel is best clarified by investigations of mental health that demonstrate, in young people, "the limbic framework (site of dread and tension) develops before areas where arranging, enthusiastic guideline, and drive control happen" (Berger, 2016). At the end of the day, if an adolescent chooses to utilize drugs, join a pack, take, or participate in some other crime, it is on the grounds that the intuitive idea of their impulsivity bests the craving to utilize rationale and thinking in their mind. 

Despite what might be expected, grown-ups have cerebrums that are completely advanced. In contrast to youngsters, grown-ups have created enthusiastic development. At the point when a grown-up is set off by bad feelings, they for the most part search for arrangements that expect them to survey a circumstance, through a sensible focal point, prior to including feelings. In brain science, grown-ups are considered postformal scholars, who can think about different rationales, decisions and discernments (Berger, 2016). Additionally, grown-ups are totally equipped for utilizing basic speculation to gauge activities and results. This is obvious when a grown-up decides not to follow up without much forethought to satisfy an ethically maladroit longing however rather consider the adverse results that they could suffer subsequently. 

Notwithstanding intellectual burdens, there are an assortment of natural factors that lead minors to carry out wrongdoings. For instance, a few kids come from unfortunate home conditions that impact their conduct. Envision a 16-year-old kid experiencing childhood in a home that is filled with medication and liquor maltreatment by his folks. Then, at that point he chooses to utilize medications and drink liquor underage. This split choice to impersonate the conduct standards he is encircled by brings about flighty conduct that drives him to submit a homicide. The carelessness of his folks is an immediate reason for the conclusiveness of this wrongdoing. Shown in the given situation, abuse of a youngster duplicates the likelihood of them taking part in many sorts of wrongdoing. (Currie and Tekin, 2006). Social scientist utilize the Social Learning Theory to show this change in conduct. The hypothesis communicates that youngsters foster examples of rough or delinquent conduct through impersonation (Currie and Tekin, 2006). 

Natural difficulties related with living in low pay networks additionally triggers criminal demonstrations of minors. For example, youth in neediness have restricted assets which can bring about poor psychological well-being conditions that make them more inclined to participate in unsafe practices that they may not in any case be associated with. Living in the midst of food deserts and having scant monetary freedoms establishes a climate for youth that doesn't raise expect their future, so they have no respect for the law in light of the fact that to them their life is useless. Now and again youth assume the monetary obligations of their close family due to there not being sufficient pay by their folks. Crime percentages are higher in these networks since police presence is more unmistakable and frequently target youth of shading. Being encircled by incident is not really helpful for youth wanting to keep laws made by strategy creators who don't put resources into their local area. 

Besides, there are a few motivation behind why sentencing adolescents as grown-ups is incapable to recovery endeavors. One explanation is that detaining adolescents in grown-up penitentiaries adversely affect their emotional wellness and improvement. Adolescents regularly have psychological wellness gives that are not addressed before detainment. Placing adolescents in grown-up penitentiaries just uplifts their odds of turning out to be progressively sick. Thus, their passionate guideline is imperfect, and they resort to outrageous activities to abstain from anguish. Studies show that young are multiple times bound to end it all in grown-up jails than adolescent offices (Human Impact Partners, 2017). Additionally, adolescents battle to steadily create and keep a personality while imprisoned. Thusly, they determine a feeling of character from the grown-up prisoners they notice. This method of personality improvement is particularly risky in light of the fact that it makes a misguided feeling of self that can propagate unsafe practices and bothersome person attributes like that of the, noticed, imprisoned grown-ups. The 5 psychosocial errands that are significant for a creating young adult, personality advancement, independence improvement, the limit with respect to closeness, sexuality, and spotlight on accomplishment (Woodlard, Odgers, Lanza-Kaduce, Daglis, 2005), are generally enigmatic in nature to adolescents recognizing what their identity is, comprehensively, aside from the adverse impacts they have in remedial offices. 

Alongside the psychological and formative effects of the grown-up jail framework, adolescents have a higher danger of being exposed to brutality and misuse. While fierce occurrences are normal in adolescent offices, "youth in grown-up remedial offices are twice as prone to be beaten by staff and 50 percent bound to be assaulted by weapon than youth in adolescent offices" (Human Impact Partners, 2017). Not exclusively do youth in grown-up detainment facilities face the danger of vicious assaults, they likewise are defenseless against sexual maltreatment. A report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2005 and 2006, shows that young involved 1% of grown-up prison detainees, yet they represented 21% of casualties of prisoner on-prisoner sexual brutality (Castro, Muhammad and Arthur, 2014). Youth are clearly designated by grown-up hunters in the grown-up jail frameworks at the same time, when dissected further, it is obvious that the adolescents recognizing as a component of the LGBTQ people group are particularly gone after. An investigation, led in 2007, at six California male jails, featured that prisoners recognizing as LGBTQ were revealing being physically attacked at a rate that was multiple times higher than the general populace (Justice Detention International, 2009). 

As a last point for examinations, youth have inadequate assets in grown-up penitentiaries that would help with their future achievement and recovery. For instance, grown-up offices have limit instructive, emotional well-being, and actual wellbeing programs that are customized to the requirements of youth. It is obvious, through the significantly low educator to-detainee proportion and physical-space limitations of homerooms in grown-up offices, that adolescents are not getting the nature of instruction needed to have positive scholarly progressions (Wood, 2012). Also, youths are still in phases of mental turn of events and have changing mental treatment needs that grown-up offices are unfit to oversee. 

Maybe a more effective approach to restore minors that carry out intolerable wrongdoings, isn't to charge them as grown-ups however all things being equal, give them the satisfactory assets to be a useful citizen after they carry out an adolescent punishment. Enactment for condemning youth ought not disregard the assortment of impacts that sway the result of kid wrongdoing. It ought to be focused on that kids don't have the psychological abilities of grown-ups. Given this, it is easy to process how youngsters and youths settle on choices dependent without much forethought instead of rationale and thinking. Eventually, if the advancement of a youngster's brain isn't at a similar neurological level of a grown-up, they ought not be held to the equivalent lawful norm regardless. The boss force to be reckoned with of youth conduct is the conditions they are presented to, some of which produce criminal activity among youth that call for mental and social reproduction. Indicting minors as grown-ups adversely influences their capacity to restore, because of insufficient assets for self-improvement in grown-up remedial offices. Therefore, the drawn out impact of the grown-up jail framework on youth isn't restoration, as expected, however expanded adolescent recidivism – the propensity of a sentenced criminal to reoffend. To close with an assertion from an individual straightforwardly influenced by the unforgiving real factors talked about, Phillip, who was charged as a grown-up at age 16 expressively declares that, "If the criminal equity framework isn't doing what it purportedly should do which is to restore and fix an individual, then, at that point their activity of stripping an individual of their mankind is criminal in itself"

Cite this page

Growing up everyone has friends of all social classes and behaviors. Many live wealthy lifestyles, and others not so fortunate. Many children loved going home after school and living the 'Leave it to Beaver" home life. Others had a home life that was sad and created angst. They literally had nothing to eat and no safe place to sleep or rest their heads.

Having hardworking and devoted parents is essential to create a better society. This makes a big difference for any individuals success and how they wish to live their overall life. Discipline should play a big role in the life of children as they grow older. No one should have to experience friends or family members being incarcerated at such a young age. It is a burden for their families and society. This could be a shock or trauma, when juveniles are incarcerated and tried as adults. This process could have an everlasting impact in their lives as well as their surroundings. For this, and after doing some more research juveniles should not be tried as adults.

When children have family hardships growing up, as teenagers, they don't have parental guidance and support to determine what is right or wrong. The average teenager has more chances of being with the wrong crowd and making the incorrect decisions such as; trying drugs, larceny, murder, and even rape. Juveniles are also influenced by the internet and all its resources. The worldwide web offers information that could be used for good or to commit an endless amount of crimes. The lack of discipline and influences of social media and TV has had a large impact on the decisions that juveniles make and, on the people, they hang out with; which in some instances, the wrong people.

Many of the TV show's that are being watched in actuality contain a large amount of violence, drug usage, and alcoholism. This, along with the incorrect form of education opens the door for teens to become juvenile delinquents. One of the most important things in a child's education is for their parents to be involved in their education. When parents are involved in their child's education starting a young age, children have a higher chance of becoming successful citizens not only in school but outside as well. There are expectations set by the parent as well as society.

When parents do not participate in their children's education, nor have an expectation from them, there is a lack of nurture and guidance to push children to success. With the lack of guidance, children can end up in the wrong place because many parents expect their children's teacher to raise their child. When in reality, teaching is a partnership between parents and teachers, in which they shape and mold children and teens to become successful citizens.

Juveniles are accounted for about 16 percent of all violent crimes' arrests and 32 percent of all property crime arrests in 1999, which was when juvenile crime was at its all-time high (PBS.org). With the lack of parenting and guidance some states argue that sentencing juveniles as adults, is a method that where in society, the crime rate for juveniles would decrease, but in Minneapolis Minnesota, about 63 percent of the all violent crimes are committed by juveniles (Johnson). In theory, this statement argues that with tougher penalties, juveniles will not commit certain amount of crimes.

We assume that by a certain age, juveniles or young adults should be mature enough to know what is right and wrong. When in reality, our brains are not completely developed until our mid to late twenties (Schiraldi). Another phrase often used is 'Old enough to commit the crime, old enough to do the time." (Schiraldi). It should be cleared that juveniles are not adults and throwing them into an adult prison full of criminals, that have committed rape and murder, will not make them one.

'A separate justice system was created in the United States in 1899" (Gulstad). The goal for this new juvenile court was to divert juvenile offenders from the harsh punishments of the adult criminal court and also, to encourage rehabilitation based on the juveniles needs. Although the justice system understands that most juveniles' offenders are too young to truly understand the consequences, many of them are still transferred to courts to be tried as adults. When a juvenile is sent to prison, he/she has a cell mate that could be a bad influence for them. Having an adult cellmate could have a negative impact on the juvenile.

Instead of prison serving as a lesson for the juvenile, it could result as a way to get into more trouble, and the question is, when would rehabilitation take place? Being with an adult cell mate a juvenile will not be able to mature properly. Not only that, on any given day, 10,000 juveniles are imprisoned with adult cellmates (Lahey). Juveniles face horrendous atrocities when incarcerated with adults' cellmates. Some of those atrocities include; rape or other form of sexual victimization. The national prison rape elimination commission described their fate and in 2009, 'youth incarcerated with adults are probably at the highest risk of sexual abuse" said a spokesperson for the NPRE.

Under the prison rape elimination act of 2003, juveniles must be housed separately from adult inmates. Regardless of these instructions, some states continued to house juveniles with adult inmates (Lahey). The sad part is that only 1 in 10 cases of sexual victimization report their abuse with juveniles being sexually abused and having no one to recur to. It is 36 times more likely that a juvenile incarcerated with an adult or being abused is more likely to commit suicide rather than juveniles housed apart from adult offenders. Not only are juveniles affected physically but also, juveniles are being denied education and subjected to various dangers.

All juveniles have the right to an education in correctional facilities, but a 2005 survey found that 40% of the jails and prisons had no educational services at all. In addition, juveniles that are imprisoned with adults are subject to mentally harmful practices and have less mental health services available to them in the prison system. When juveniles are sentenced as adults, they receive an adult criminal record (Lahey), which could result in restriction from many employment and education opportunities.

When there is a lack of education or employment, this means there is a higher chance of recidivism. So, it makes sense that juveniles that go through the adult system are 34 percent more likely to be arrested again (Lahey). This creates a cycle of juvenile incarceration that is incredibly expensive.

Ethically as in an adult or parent, it is imaginable for a young adult to be forced into the adult prison system, in hopes to regain some sort of rehabilitation for the crime he has committed.

Perhaps, solutions to this situation should be handled in a different manner. Should the education system of the United States be more involved with the process of rehabilitation as well, as helping to determine better solutions to the problem of juvenile delinquency? School social workers detect the signs of troubled students and try to guide them down the correct pathway. But this does not work for every student. As a result, those students end up in the wrong places at the wrong time. Parents should also, be committed and held accountable for minors mental and physical wellbeing. Parents are held accountable for truancy, but why not behavior? Our government could do more for our troubled teens. Maybe fund more institutions for mentally troubled juveniles, as well, as the ones who do not have any guidance/ support from their parents or guardians. Having these programs could be a very effective way to help troubled teens and create and maintain a better society

These are only some of the reasons why, juvenile should not be tried as adults, although juveniles are mature enough to commit the same crimes as an adult. The truth is that an adult's brain is not fully developed until after their mid-twenties and even after that everyone is susceptible to making mistakes that could result in traumatic mistakes. With the right, help things can be changed for good; therefore, juveniles should have alternate options rather than being tried with other criminals and being incarcerated with criminals that could damage their future rather than help them learn from their mistakes.

Cite this page

The criminal equity framework has a long framework since 1700s. In the times past, hoodlums were attempted also paying little mind to the age. There was no separation between the minors and the grown-ups as no instrument had been set up to recognize the two gatherings of people. Correctional facilities and penitentiaries had combinations of both the grown-ups and minor hoodlums. This presented offenses hazard to the means as their system of adapting isn't like that of a grown-up. Subsequently, there was a need to have the minors and grown-ups attempted independently to support the minor's prosperity. Notwithstanding, with the resulting change and revisions made in enactment, it became principal for minors to be attempted uniquely in contrast to the grown-ups. Attributable to a few reasons, adolescents ought not be investigated as grown-ups in court. Adolescents are in their turn of events and progress from high school life, and they might know no better. Kid improvement is dependent on the social, natural, and their day by day communications. 

Youngsters will figure out how they will act as a grown-up from the conditions they are gotten (McCord and Crowell, 2001). Basically, the improvement of delinquent practices among the adolescent is negligible in the crook, which debilitate contribution in crimes. Nonetheless, in the re-insult with a high pervasiveness of exercises, then, at that point the wrongdoing rate among the adolescent is very high. As a rule, youngsters arrive at adulthood before they can include in genuine delinquent conduct since their practices are effortlessly recognized by their gatekeepers or guardians and preventive measures taken before on. 

Essentially, young people don't think a lot about the current laws and the offenses that are characterized in the different bits of enactment. By and large, what might be an offense might be a state of a kid satisfying their interest. For instance, little fellows might attempt maryjane to encounter the high inclination. This makes them not have direct information on which activities are understood as an offense. In this way, when they are associated with wrongdoings, they ought not be investigated as grown-ups in court. Adolescents are as yet during the time spent turn of events, and in this stage, they gain from grown-ups. Blending grown-ups and youngsters at a similar court represent an incredible danger to the conduct of the adolescents. When developing, minors will in general duplicate practically everything from the grown-ups who are near them. As a rule, grown-ups are bound to submit genuine and grave offenses when contrasted with kids wrongdoers. 

Subsequently, when both are assembled during the preliminary, the adolescents will realize what comprises genuine violations and attempt to carry out it, in actuality. When in court, grown-ups consider it to be a type of opportunity, refusal thus will in general become forceful, and this conduct might be duplicated by the adolescent who are attempted along with the grown-ups. For the kids in the adolescent framework, they consider it to be a methodology towards revising their bowed practices. Examination brings up that kids who are attempted along with the grown-ups are bound to re-insult than the people who are attempted in a different adolescent equity framework. The stems from the way that kids will consistently attempt to execute what they have gained from grown-ups who are nearer to them. Subsequently, adolescents ought to in their different court. A criminal equity framework isn't all around arranged to deal with adolescent wrongdoers. Beginning from preliminary to imprisonment, it is evident that the grown-up arrangement of preliminary isn't planned so that it can oblige the interest of the adolescent guilty parties. Principally, the criminal equity framework ought to be utilized to prevent, restore, and disallow one's contribution in crimes. 

In any case, this isn't the situation, as the grown-up equity framework serves more as a reformatory measure for the offenses which one has submitted. The staff working in the grown-up criminal equity framework has next to zero preparing on how they should deal with adolescents. When attempted along with the grown-ups, adolescent guilty parties won't understand the advantage that should accumulate the equity framework. Adolescent equity framework centers around recovery, preparing, treatment, and getting the buries of the minors; conditions which are not agreed in grown-up equity framework (Cicourel, 2017). When taking through adolescent courts, youthful wrongdoers are bound to change to valuable individuals from the general public since they get steady youth administrations. Inferable from the protected conditions that are in the adolescent equity framework, the youthful guilty parties are dealt with until the time they have completely changed. In this manner, when of delivery, they have completely transformed and become devoted residents. This makes it important to have adolescents attempted independently from grown-up guilty parties. The preliminary of adolescents in grown-up offices masses the state's consumption in restoration offices. 

As indicated by the National Juvenile Justice Network, there are more than 250, 000 adolescents who are going through the preliminary. This number is probably going to trouble the citizens since measurements have brought up that consistently about $39 billion is spent on guilty parties. With the consideration of minors in grown-up equity framework, the spending plan to higher. It worth to take note of that adolescents are seldom engaged with savage wrongdoings and accordingly attempting them in the adolescent court will facilitate their condemning. As it is the nature most youthful guilty parties get non-custodial sentence and in this way are not under the state's watch, chops down the consumption on the equity framework as it would have been if the two grown-ups and adolescents, in a similar court. The cash can be returned in different utilizations like helping the young out. This shows the embodiment of having separate preliminary of the adolescents from the grown-ups. Basically, the arrangement of attempting grown-ups and adolescent in a similar court ought to be a relic of past times. Criminal equity framework should target defending the interests of adolescent by having them attempted in discrete court. This stems from the way that kids are in their formative stage, adolescent need assurance, and care, and it sets aside on citizens' cash.

Cite this page

The United States law prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from cigarettes, beer, or voting in the U.S Presidential elections. In most states and the District of Columbia, individuals under 18 years of age are considered juveniles. In 1899, the first juvenile court was established in Cook County Chicago, Illinois (Hemmns, Brody, Spohn, 2016, p.143). In the last few years, more juveniles are being charged as adults in the criminal justice system, as not only they are being tried but also convicted as adults. Controversies have surrounded if juveniles should be rehabilitated rather than going through the adult criminal system. Adult courts and juveniles court differ from one another. Prosecutors look at different factors before charging the juvenile as an adult. If the juvenile is found guilty of the crime, there are different sentencing options. Also, there are controversies around if juveniles are competent to stand trial and understand the criminal proceeding against them while being mentally capable for incarceration in adult facilities.

Juvenile Courts v Adult Courts

Despite the amount of similarities between the juvenile and adult criminal proceeding, some differences persist. One of the most notable differences is the role the judge plays in the court. First, a juvenile court judge takes a more active part in proceedings. The judge is expected to act rather more as a wise parent rather than as an impartial judge. A juvenile judge may initiate the questioning of an alleged offender, cross-examine witnesses, and bring up the juvenile’s background. Another difference between the juvenile and adult system is the severity of the punishment imposed by the judge. The purpose of juvenile courts is to rehabilitate a delinquent and to prevent any future behavior, instead of imposing a lengthy jail sentence. On the other hand, the adult court system is more focus on punishing the defendant according to the crime he/she allegedly committed. Adult court systems are more formal, for example, rules regarding whether evidence is admissible. Also, the juveniles do not have a right to a jury or bail versus the adult system is not part of their rights. The main focus of the adult court system is on punishment based on the crime committed. In contrast, the juvenile court system philosophy consists of restorative justice, which involves a youth offender taking responsibility for his or her behavior and redressing harm to a victim and community (Alarid, 2014, p.309).

Factors to Charge and Adult as a Juvenile

All states have provisions to move a case from juvenile courts to adult courts for severe violent crimes. Before moving the case from juvenile court to adult court, a hearing must be held for a judge to rule on the decision. According to Griffin (2003), state transfer laws define categories of juveniles their age, their past records, or the seriousness of the charges against them, or in some cases must be tried in courts of criminal jurisdiction (p.2). There are certain factors the prosecution will look at before charging a juvenile as an adult, the age of the juvenile when the crime was committed, type or level of offense, which can include anything from a person, property, public order offenses, or drug law violations- lastly, their previous criminal record.

Some states have automatic transfer laws that require juvenile cases to be transferred to adult criminal court if two factors are present, the offender is a certain age or older, and the charges involved a serious or violent offense, such as rape or murder. Cristian Fernandez, a 12-year-old boy from Jacksonville Florida, became national news in June 2011, when the state of Florida indicted him first-degree murder in the death of his two-year-old step-brother, David. State Attorney Angela Corey decided to charge Fernandez in the murder of David because the state of Florida is one of thirteen states that have not imposed a minimum age for the prosecution of a child as an adult (Equal Justice Initiative, 2016). Even if, those two factors are present, a juvenile is subject to transfer fifteen states in the United States that have presumptive wavier laws which designated a category of cases in which a waiver to criminal court is presumed to be appropriate. In some states, the type of offense is the one that matters. For example, in Alaska, the children of any age charged with any certain violent felonies are presumed to be unamenable to treatment. The state of Utah has a minimum age of 16-years-old in which they can charge a juvenile as an adult (Griffin, 2003, p.6).

Transfer Laws

In the early 80s, many states passed legal reforms intended to get tough on juvenile crime. One of those reforms was the revision of transfer, also called waiver or certification laws (Griffin, 2003). While the age at which juveniles can be transferred to the adult system varies across states, most states will transfer juveniles fourteen and older who have committed a serious violent offense. Typically, there are four categories of offenses for which juveniles of a certain age will transfer; 1) any crime, 2) capital crimes and murder, 3) certain violent felonies, and 4) certain crimes committed by juveniles with prior records (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Transfer, also known as waiver or certification, can be waived in three ways; statutory exclusion, this refers to state legislate statues automatically exclude certain juvenile offenders from the juvenile court jurisdiction and their cases be filed directly with adult courts. Judicial waiver, authority to transfer a case to criminal court is given to a juvenile court judge, who certifies, remands, or blinds over for criminal prosecutions. Concurrent jurisdiction, the original jurisdiction is shared by both adult and juvenile courts, in either which a prosecutor has the discretion to file (Alarid, 2014, p. 305). Under Colorado law, the youngest age a child can be tried as an adult considering he/she allegedly committed a crime, in a class one or two felony is the age of 12 years-old. The state of Colorado has specific criteria that will warrant moving a juvenile’s case to district court via direct file or transfer. The age of the juvenile, the type of offense charged, the juvenile’s criminal history, and whether the district attorney invokes the district court original jurisdiction or seeks a transfer of a pending juvenile court proceeding to the district court. One recent example of a transfer is in the state of Colorado. Jennie Bunsom a 16-yeard-old was charged with first-degree murder by a person in a position of trust in the death of her nephew, Jordan Vong. Bumson had a juvenile hearing scheduled, but her appearance was waived, and the juvenile case was dismissed since the district attorney filed a direct file and transferred to an adult court.

Blended Sentencing

Some states blended sentencing laws typically cover the same class of serious or violent crimes as the transfer laws, but juvenile blended sentencing differs from the juvenile waiver in the juvenile court has the jurisdiction to directly impose an adult sanction. For example, an adult prison, contrary to the application of adult sanction through juvenile waiver is possible only by the adult criminal court (Garland, Melton & Hass, 2012, p.136). Some states give an opportunity to the judges to impose both juvenile and adult correctional sanctions, but many people believe is that by doing so the juvenile is exposed to dangers in adult prisons at a very young age. Blended sentencing has been designed to create a middle ground between traditional juvenile and adult sanctions (Alarid, 2014, p.310). According to Garland, Melton, and Hass (2012), there are three types of blended sentencing today, and all of them are widely used. The juvenile-exclusive model, this model has only been used in the state of New Mexico, it gives the judge the opportunity to impose either a juvenile or adult sentence at the judge discretion.

The second most used is the juvenile-inclusive model. This model allows judges to impose both adult and juvenile sentences, for example, the judge can impose a five-year sentence in a juvenile detention center and suspend the adult sentence, but if the juvenile fails to comply with the juvenile sentence, then he/she will finish the rest of the sentence in the adult corrections. Currently, twelve states use this model. Lastly, the juvenile-contiguous model. This model allows the juvenile court the authority to give a youth a juvenile sentence followed immediately by an adult sentence. Under this model, the juvenile is retained under juvenile jurisdiction until the state declared age of majority (18 years old). Currently, three states use this model Colorado, Rhode Island, and Texas. Thus, blended sentencing varies from state to state in its application and depending on the state the minimum age at which this type of sentencing can be applied varies greatly. For example, in the state of Massachusetts, the juvenile must be at least fourteen years old to receive a blended sentence, and only for certain felonies, on the other hand in the state of Alaska the juvenile must be sixteen or older. The state of Colorado has no minimum age requirement to administer a blended sentence.

Juveniles Competent to Stand Trial

Questions have arisen if a defendant is competent to stand trial. Moreover, the question is being asked if a juvenile is competent for court proceedings. Trial competency is not insanity, nor an inquiry into criminal responsibility. It is rather, the standard for trial competency, which was set out in Dusky v U.S. in 1960 directs the court to inquire “whether the accused has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him” (p. 402). As noted, competency to stand trial means that the defendant needs to have sufficient ability to comprehend the significance of the criminal proceedings against him/her, the potential outcomes, and the ability to participate in the trial process and decision making about any relevant trial issues. How is adjudicative competence conceptualized? Well, mental health professionals and the courts have identified several types of abilities that are significant for the two broad capacities to which Dusky refers too. McGarry and associates (Laboratory of Community Psychiatry, 1973), developed a list that was relevant to the Dusky standards, and it was organized and broken down into four categories by Grisso (2000, p.142).

How Are Juveniles Affected While Incarcerated?

Juveniles who are charged and tried as adults are often placed in adult facilities, and in many instances are not getting an appropriate education and are subject to various dangers, anything from mental and physical. Many juveniles housed in adult facilities do not have access to any education or vocational studies. Some of the reasons include long wait lists, not enough funds to create programs or to staff the currently available programs to expand. As you can imagine, determining how much victimization occurs in jails and prisons is hard to detect because sometimes inmates are afraid to report due to retaliation. According to Daigle & Muftic (2016), gendered difference discovered in physical victimization is that when females are physically victimized, they are more likely to be victimized by another inmate that are males; males are more likely to be victimized by a staff member. On the other hand, younger, white inmates are more likely to experience physical victimization perpetrated by other inmates than by staff (p. 227). In adult facilities, juveniles are at a higher risk of victimization more than “any other group of incarcerated persons,” according to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission report (2009).

Also, juveniles in adult facilities are in the same environment as older and more experienced criminals, which means picking up bad habits from them. Juveniles will tend to pick up negative behaviors, and that can lead to getting in trouble while in prions/jail. Moreover, juveniles are not just affected physically, but also mentally. In some instances, juveniles are placed in solitary confinement for their safety, to protect them from older or dangerous inmates. They are typically in a small cell for about 23 hours a day; restrictions include but not limited to radio, television, limited reading material and contact with staff and peers. In recent U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama have focused their attention on the immaturity of the adolescent` brain. These cases, along with the evolving developmental neuroscience have suggested that teenagers are especially vulnerable to the astonishing psychological stresses associated with placement in solitary confinement. According to Andrew Clark (2017) in a study conducted of one hundred completed suicides in juvenile detention center facilitates found that fifty percent happened at the time when they were confined to their rooms with only seventeen percent of the deceased on suicide precaution status at the time of their death.

Conclusion

Despite the differences among the juveniles and adults the United States law will continue to recognize that if a crime has been committed the prosecutor has to charge and tired the offender with the crime regardless of the age. The prosecutor in charge of the case has to determine the type of offense committed, the age of the offender, and the past criminal history, if any, to decide if the case should stay in juvenile court, and if so, will the judge impose a blended sentence. Or the case will be waived to adult court and the juvenile be tried and convicted as an adult.

References

Alarid, L. F. (2015). Community-Based Corrections (10th ed., pp. 300-323). Belmont: Cengage Learning.

Bonnie, R.J., & Grisso, T. (2000). Adjudicative competence and youthful offenders. In T. Grisso & R.G. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on criminal justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Clark, A. B. (2017). Juvenile solitary confinement as a form of child abuse. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 45(3), 350.

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).

Garland, B., Melton, M., & Hass, A. (2012). Public opinion on juvenile blended sentencing. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(2), 135-154. doi:10.1177/1541204011418991

Griffin, P. (2003, October). Trying and Sentencing Juveniles as Adults: An analysis of State Transfer and Blended Sentencing Laws [Electronic version]. National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., . . . Schwartz, R. (2003). Juveniles' competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents' and adults' capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27(4), 333-363. doi:http://dx.doi.org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1023/A:1024065015717

Hemmens, C., Brody, D. C., & Spohn, C. (2017). Criminal Courts A Contemporary Perspective (3rd ed., pp. 179-180). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Laboratory of Community Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School (1973). Competency to stand trial and mental illness. Rockville, MD: Department of Health Education and Welfare.

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006, March). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National Report. U.S Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/NR2006.pdf

Teigen, A. (2017, April 17). Juvenile age of jurisdiction & transfer to adult court laws. In National Conference of State Legislature. Retrieved December 2, 2018, from http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx

Thirteen states have no minimum age for adult prosecution of children. (2016, September). In Equal Justice Initiative. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from https://eji.org/news/13-states-lack-minimum-age-for-trying-kids-as-adults

Walton, R. B. (2009, June). National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/226680.pdf   

Cite this page

The topic of juvenile offenders being tried and punished as adults is a very touchy subject. Some people support the idea and many are opposed to it. Suppose two young teens age 14 get into an altercation and one decides to stab the other in the heat of the moment. This teen has committed a crime and should get punished for his or her actions. The question is whether the youth should get tried and punished in Juvenile Court or Criminal Court as an adult?

When children commit crimes such as murder, does that automatically make them adults? This is the question in which supporters ask. Or do children maintain some bits and pieces of childhood and innocence, regardless of the severity of their actions? This is what those in opposition question. Does one or two years younger than eighteen make much of a difference? Is it fair for one person, just seventeen years of age or younger to be tried in juvenile court, receiving a lesser sentence than someone who is just a few years older who committed the same crime? I believe juveniles who commit heinous crimes just like adults, should be charged as adults. No one should be exempt from punishment. A crime is a crime and for that reason, juveniles who commit violent crimes should suffer the same consequences. This paper will discuss the history and purpose of the juvenile justice system and the pros and cons of trying juvenile offenders as adults.

'Throughout the late 18th century, 'infants" below the age of reason (traditionally seven years old) were presumed to be incapable of criminal intent and were, therefore, exempt from prosecution and punishment. Children as young as seven years old, however, could stand trial in criminal court for offenses committed and, if found guilty, could be sentenced to prison or even to death." (Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report, National Center for Juvenile Justice). The juvenile court started more than a hundred years ago, it was created based on the idea that juvenile offenders shouldn't go through the adult criminal courts. The first juvenile court was formed in 1899 in Illinois. The juvenile court was created to handle juvenile delinquents based on their adolescence rather than the actual crimes committed. The purpose was to focus on the child or adolescent as a person that was in need of support and not on the action that brought him or her before the court. In juvenile court, minors are not charged with crimes, they are more so charged with wrongdoings/ misconducts. In court children were not looked at being guilty, they were judged as someone who made a mistake and committed a dreadful crime. The juvenile system was not created to send the youth to prison. It sent them to a training school, a rehabilitation program or reformatory.

Juvenile court proceedings were very much relaxed and easygoing. It was not suspenseful like Criminal Court. In Juvenile Court, the decision was usually left to the juvenile court judge. The duty of the judge was to act in the best interest of the child. The normal procedures that were required and available to adults, such as the right to an attorney, the right to know the charges brought against one, and the right to trial by jury were considered unnecessary in juvenile court. Court proceedings for the youth were closed to the public and their records were to remain confidential. The reason being was to prevent an interference with the child's ability to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the public called for getting tough with juveniles and trying them as adults. Because of an increase to violent crimes committed by juveniles, many started to push for state legal reforms in juvenile justice system, which would punish juveniles tougher for serious crimes, rather than stick to the traditional rehabilitation approach. In Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court: An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions, Patricia Torbet and Linda Szymanski states that 'This change in emphasis from a focus on rehabilitating the individual to punishing the act is exemplified by the seventeen states that redefined the purpose clause of their juvenile courts to emphasize public safety, certainty of sanctions, and offender accountability." This change in the system was brought about by belief that many saw the juvenile justice system as being too soft on delinquents, who are thought to be potentially as much a threat to public safety as adult criminals.

'In many jurisdictions, teenagers commit as many as ten to fifteen serious crimes before anything is done to them. It is amazing how ancient, archaic, and broken down the juvenile justice system."(Jeffrey A. Butts, Adele V. Harrell, Pg.9). Because children are young they get away with murder. They get multiple chances to learn from their mistakes, but some commit numerous violent crimes because they know they will get a light sentencing. The youth is wiser than we think. To many teens, getting arrested is cool to them. Many youths are in and out of juvie constantly and they are not learning from their previous mistakes. It is because the juvenile system is too soft on teens why some choose to take advantage of it.

Issues arising from juvenile delinquency proceedings hardly ever come before the U.S. Supreme Court. Beginning in the late 1960's, however, the Court decided a series of landmark cases that dramatically changed the character and procedures of the juvenile justice system. (Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report, National Center for Juvenile Justice). The 1999 National Report, National Center for Juvenile Justice describes a series of cases that made juvenile court more like criminal court, but still maintained some differences. Breed v. Jones 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779 (1975) concluded that a waiver of a juvenile to criminal court following adjudication in juvenile court constitutes double jeopardy. In 1970, Gary Jones whom was seventeen years old, was charged with armed robbery. He was adjudicated delinquent on the original charge and two other robberies. Jones's attorney filed a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the waiver to criminal court violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an adjudication in juvenile court, in which a juvenile is found to have violated a criminal statute, is equivalent to a trial in criminal court.

In re Winship 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970) the court decided that in delinquency matters, the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Twelve year old Samuel Winship, was charged with stealing $112 from a woman's purse in a store. A store employee claimed to have seen Winship running from the scene just before the woman noticed the money was missing; others in the store stated that the employee was not in a position to see the money being taken. He was adjudicated delinquent and committed to a training school. At the time New York juvenile courts operated under the civil court standard of a 'preponderance of evidence." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 'reasonable doubt" standard should be required in all delinquency adjudications.

In the case of McKeiver v. Pennsylvania 403 U.S. 528, 91 S.Ct. 1976 (1971) it was held that jury trials are not constitutionally required in juvenile court hearings. Joseph McKeiver, age sixteen, was charged with robbery, larceny, and receiving stolen goods. He and about twenty to thirty other youth allegedly chased three youth and took twenty-five cents from them. At the hearing, his attorney's request for a jury trial was denied by the court. He was adjudicated and placed on probation. The State Supreme Court affirmed the lower court, arguing that of all due process rights, trial by jury is most likely to 'destroy the traditional character of juvenile proceedings." The U.S. Supreme Court found that the due process clause of the Fourteenth amendment did not require jury trials in juvenile court. As a result, these cases were the start of a change in the juvenile system from when it was first introduced.

What are some pros of trying juveniles as adults? It is argued that trying juveniles as adults will decrease crimes committed by the youth. Children may start thinking more carefully about their crimes, knowing they could receive adult sentence. The result of a heinous crime remains the same, no matter who commits it, whether it is an adolescence or an adult. Perpetrators should be held accountable and responsible for their actions. When kids get punitive sentencing, it acts as a warning to kids who are considering committing crimes. Light sentences do not teach the youth the lesson they need to learn. Kids today are more sophisticated at a younger age; they understand the implications of violence and how to use violent weapons. It is absurd to argue that a modern child, who sees the effect of violence around him in the news every day, does not understand what killing really is. The fact that child killers know how to load and shoot a gun is an indicator that they understand exactly what they're doing. Charging the youth as adults can possibly help reduce gang related crimes. Gang members tend to use teenagers to commit their crimes because they know that they will receive a lighter sentence than if they were to do it themselves. It is unfair for gang members to take advantage of young children, but punishing teens as adults for the same crime adults commit will send a message to gang members that they can no longer use teens to do their dirty work.

Many experts believe that trying juveniles as adults will only make matters worse. They feel that the juvenile prison system can help kids turn their lives around. Instead of trying adolescents as adults, rehabilitation helps to give the youth a second chance. Why rehabilitation? Rehabilitation is better for society in the long run than releasing someone who's spent their entire young adult life in general prison population. It is said that teenagers who are released from juvenile prison is far less likely to commit a crime than someone who was released from an adult facility. Another point that some argue is that children do not have the intellectual or moral capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. Recent Longitudinal neuroimaging studies demonstrate that the adolescent brain continues to mature well into the 20s. The studies suggest that the brain's prefrontal lobe, which some scientists speculate plays a crucial role in inhibiting inappropriate behavior, may not reach full development until age 20. (Johnson, S. B., Blum, R. W., & Giedd, J. N. (2009). Adolescent Maturity and the Brain: The Promise and Pitfalls of Neuroscience Research in Adolescent Health Policy. The Journal of Adolescent Health??: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 45(3), 216?“221.) In addition, children should not be able to get access to deadly weapons and adults who make guns easily accessible to them should be held accountable as well.

How can we prevent juveniles from committing serious crimes that will land them in jail? Two ways I feel juvenile crimes can be prevented and keep teens from becoming incarcerated are to make access to handguns less accessible to the youth and to improve education for youth in poor communities. I believe these two options will be a start to keep the youth out trouble and to prevent them from being charged as adults when they commit serious crimes.

Cite this page