Overview of juvenile crime in the US
Juvenile crime is considered to be one of the nation’s serious problems. Juveniles should receive different treatment as compared to the adults in the criminal justice system. Presently, the growth rate of juvenile crimes has risen highly. The Juvenile Justice System is quite different from that of the adults. The criminal justice system is a complicated one and it has no such exceptions when it comes to the juveniles. This system focuses on the philosophy of what and why children need to be protected and corrected. Young people or juveniles should not be punished that often. Children should be treated like children and not as adults. Therefore, the criminal justice system is different in the cases of both adults and juveniles.
Juveniles or young people should be treated differently depending on the nature of their crimes. In all the existing jurisdictions, the lowest age for committing criminal responsibility is 10 years. Children who have not attained the age of 10 will not be held responsible legally for their activities or actions (Stockings et al. 2016). Presently, young people commit crimes disproportionately. Police processes those individuals who are aged 15 to 18 for the commission of a crime as compared to the members of other population. Juveniles are held responsible for the maximum number of crimes that have been recorded. The nature of crimes and the age plays the major factors in determining the level of punishment. Adults are referred to as the hardened criminals who have committed offences of heavy grievances (Shoemaker 2017). However, separate juvenile courts are set up for the young criminals. They are not taken to the court were adult criminals are taken to. The purpose of juvenile system rests on the factor that young offenders have a proper chance of being rehabilitated and should be treated differently from the adult offenders. Both the criminal justice systems differ from each other and reflect the thinking pattern in a number of ways (Scott, Bonnie and Steinberg 2016). Criminals who do not belong to the group of juvenile are punished with either fine and imprisonment or probation. Juvenile criminals are not given punishment instead they are kept under probation and encouraged to not repeat the crimes committed by them. The common types of crimes committed by them include fare evasion, vandalism and shoplifting (Shoemaker 2017). Young people disproportionately commit these certain types of offences. Juveniles rarely commit serious crimes like sexual offences and homicide since they are not compatible with the features of the department of juveniles and life situations. It is the duty of the police to detain such juveniles who are related to the offences against property rather than offense against the person. The ratio of juveniles who encounter the police for property crimes varies through all the jurisdictions (Gottfredson 2017). Generally, juveniles come in attention of the police more frequently as compared to the adults due to various reasons. Therefore, it is clearly evident as to why and how juvenile offenders get different treatment at the juvenile system than what the adult offenders get (Andrews and Bonta 2014). There are a few offences that are committed disproportionately by the young people, which include motor vehicle theft. Such incidents have increased highly because of insurance requirements. This resulted in young people visiting the police attention more oftenly (Hoeve and van der Laan 2016). Behaviors including drinking are treated to be illegal majorly due to the status of the perpetrator. As per the study, juveniles commit certain kinds of offences disproportionately. Policy changes put an inappropriate impact on the juveniles and raise their contact with the police. Decisions to transfer juveniles to adult criminal courts are important due to the consequences of sentencing of being convicted in the adult criminal court rather than in a juvenile court. However, the juvenile court plays a significant role in the criminal justice system (Trinkner, Jackson and Tyler 2017). The judges of this court passes judgments as per the doctrine of parens patriae and aims more on the offender’s potential for rehabilitation than on the needs of the individual for punishment. Serious increases in the juvenile crimes during the period of 1980 and 1990s that can lead to many jurisdictions for implementing more punitive options including waiver to adult court (Hoeve and van der Laan 2016). Juveniles can be protected from having contacts that have been repeated with the criminal justice system. The purpose of it is to to support juveniles cease from crime are critical policy issues. Juvenile crimes are not treated to be serious offences and are less costly as per the economic terms as compared to adult offending. Juvenile offenders require a higher duty of care than adult offenders. The State provides supervision of juveniles in detention. Due to the detention and encouragement, many juveniles grow out of crime and adopt lifestyles as young adults that are law-abiding. Juveniles who have suffered inside the juvenile criminal system will not continue offending any such similar crimes during their lifetime (Umbach, Berryessa and Raine 2015). However, the juvenile system crimes can have a collision upon them and it helps to promote desistance of the juveniles from the crimes. Young people or juveniles should not be tried in the adult court. Juvenile delinquency is an anti-social and criminal behavior that are committed by the young individuals (Burke 2016). Until the children have crossed the phase of adulthood, the anti-social and criminal is referred to as a crime. This consists status and delinquent offences. These acts are treated to be as legal if they are committed by adults. A status offender can be a young person committing an offence because that individual has attained the age of a juvenile (Trinkner, Jackson and Tyler 2017). When legal laws are violated, they are applied to the adults in the criminal justice system since status offenders escalate to juvenile offenders. However, juveniles should not be tried out in the adult criminal courts if they have not crossed the age limit of 18. Children should be treated in a different way than adults, as they have not committed any grevious crime (Stockings et al. 2016). Young people are not burdened with high penalties. Moreover, they are young children who should be treated with care and encouragement so that they do not repeat such offences. Adult criminals, on the other hand, are not provided utmost case since they are has achieved adulthood and are aware of their offences. Adults commit delinquent offences like murder, rape and violence (Hirschi 2017). Such offences are not committed by the children or young people and therefore, the level of their punishment are also less comparatively. Therefore, the juvenile justice system highlights and consists of number of categories of children that include neglected, dependent, abused and status offender (Scott, Bonnie and Steinberg 2016). The juvenile justice system has developed continuously over the years. Previously, juveniles were punished adults. Children were held responsible for crimes they committed unknowingly. At that time, children were seen as mini adults but they naturally had less moral as compared to the adults. The English Courts held that young children could not create the obligatory intent to be found guilty of a crime (Andrews and Bonta 2014). This was known as the defense of infancy as it was referred to the Common Law.
The differences between the juvenile justice system and the adult criminal justice system
Presently, juvenile justice system has their separate rules and treatment procedures than that of the adult criminal justice system (Murphy 2015). To form differences between them, these two set of juvenile systems were created. Creating a justice system for young people was necessary as it was better equipped to handle with the uniqueness of the juvenile cases. Children or young people are not kept in the prison (Hendrick 2015). They are usually made to stay in probation where they are encouraged and provided education of not repeating the crimes and turning into a hardened criminal. Therefore, this is how and why young people should be given different treatment from adults in the criminal justice system.
In case of juveniles, they have different rights during the time of arrest and must be provided afforded protection due to their immaturity and age. The major difference between these two systems is that young people or juveniles are not prosecuted for committing crimes but rather offending acts (Murphy 2015). As per the records of these offences or criminal acts and the records are usually sealed when the young person or juvenile reaches the age of eighteen. Hence, the acts or activities carried out as a minor will not be followed for the rest of the life as it usually does when an adult commits a crime. The movement of the juvenile courts was based on the five major philosophical principles. Firstly, children should be saved as they are worth saving (Acland 2018). Secondly, children should be protected and nurtured and during this process it should have an impact on the formal adjuratory procedures. For accomplishing a goal of reformation, the case should be processed separately and so should be the living conditions. The criminals who are known to be non-primary must go through the necessary procedure for fulfilling the needs of the child. According to the Youth Criminal Act, adult criminal and youth justice systems should be kept separated. In the criminal justice systems, the adults and youth are treated differently (Paul et al. 2015). The following points discuss how young people should be treated compared to adults in the criminal justice system. Firstly, the youth justice system focuses on helping the young people get support, which they require for becoming the members of law-abiding community. It improves the way of moving back into the community after serving a sentence in custody (Trinkner, Jackson and Tyler 2017). On the other hand, while dealing with adult criminals, rehabilitation is not provided to the adult hardened criminals (Kivel 2017). In the youth justice system, it is essential for youths to take certain responsibilities for the activities committed by them. The system is bound to respond in a way, which takes into consideration that their level of maturity is different from that of an adult. In adult criminal systems, the criminals are not given an option of taking any kind of responsibility. Youths present in the youth juvenile system, tend to enjoy all the legal rights of an adult. Specific rights are provided for special protection in the youth juvenile system (Hirschi 2017). Right to privacy and right to a lawyer are provided for safeguarding and protecting the youth when the police question him. Adults are questioned in the criminal system for the crimes they have committed. No individual will safeguard an adult only because he has committed a crime. Therefore, such special protection rights are not provided to the adult offenders (Umbach, Berryessa and Raine 2015). The youth justice system aims on finishing the process of criminal justice as fast as possible since it’s a sense of time differs from that of the adults. In the justice system of the youth, parents play a special role. They are usually informed about the activities and actions that are taken against their children. However, they are still given an opportunity to communicate with the justice officials (Andrews and Bonta 2014). During the court proceedings, parents are asked to be present for helping and supporting their children to craft positive changes (Murphy 2015). On the other hand, parents are not associated with the adults in their justice system. Adults are aware of the crimes they have committed hence they do not require their parents to encourage them. The Youth Criminal Justice Act, states that the victims should receive the treatment with compassion and respect for their privacy and dignity (Scott, Bonnie and Steinberg 2016). The victims should suffer the minimum degree of inconvenience as a outcome of their association with the system of youth criminal justice. Information should be provided to the victims regarding the proceedings and thereafter they are given an opportunity to take part and be heard (Paul et al. 2015).
References:
Acland, C.R., 2018. Youth, Murder, Spectacle: The Cultural Politics Of”” Youth In Crisis””. Routledge.
Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, J., 2014. The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.
Burke, R.H., 2016. Young people, crime and justice. Routledge.
Gottfredson, M.R., 2017. The empirical status of control theory in criminology. In Taking stock (pp. 85-108). Routledge.
Hendrick, H., 2015. Constructions and reconstructions of British childhood: An interpretative survey, 1800 to the present. In Constructing and reconstructing childhood (pp. 47-71). Routledge.
Hirschi, T., 2017. Causes of delinquency. Routledge.
Hoeve, M. and van der Laan, P.H., 2016. Persisters and desisters in crime from adolescence into adulthood: Explanation, prevention and punishment. Routledge.
Kivel, P., 2017. Uprooting Racism-: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice. New Society Publishers.
Murphy, K., 2015. Does procedural justice matter to youth? Comparing adults’ and youths’ willingness to collaborate with police. Policing and society, 25(1), pp.53-76.
Paul, M., Street, C., Wheeler, N. and Singh, S.P., 2015. Transition to adult services for young people with mental health needs: A systematic review. Clinical child psychology and psychiatry, 20(3), pp.436-457.
Scott, E.S., Bonnie, R.J. and Steinberg, L., 2016. Young adulthood as a transitional legal category: Science, social change, and justice policy. Fordham L. Rev., 85, p.641.
Shoemaker, D.J., 2017. Juvenile delinquency. Rowman & Littlefield.
Stockings, E., Hall, W.D., Lynskey, M., Morley, K.I., Reavley, N., Strang, J., Patton, G. and Degenhardt, L., 2016. Prevention, early intervention, harm reduction, and treatment of substance use in young people. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(3), pp.280-296.
Trinkner, R., Jackson, J. and Tyler, T., 2017. Expanding ‘Appropriate’Police Behavior Beyond Procedural Justice: Bounded Authority & Legal Legitimation.
Umbach, R., Berryessa, C.M. and Raine, A., 2015. Brain imaging research on psychopathy: Implications for punishment, prediction, and treatment in youth and adults. Journal of criminal justice, 43(4), pp.295-306.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
