Juvenile Justice: a Balancing Act

Children and adults are fundamentally different, and this distinction is recognized by laws in the United States. For instance, individuals under the age of 18 are considered juveniles and are thus restricted from purchasing cigarettes, alcohol, or participating in elections. The recognition of these differences extends to the legal system, where juvenile courts operate separately from adult courts. The first juvenile court was established in 1899 in Cook County, Chicago, Illinois, highlighting a longstanding tradition of treating juveniles differently under the law (Hemmns, Brody, Spohn, 2016, pp.

143). However, in recent years, there has been an increase in juveniles being charged and convicted as adults, igniting debates about the most appropriate approach for dealing with juvenile offenders.

Juvenile vs. Adult Courts

Despite some similarities in proceedings, juvenile and adult courts have distinct roles and purposes. The philosophy underlying juvenile courts is rehabilitation rather than punishment. Juvenile judges often take on a more active role, akin to a wise parent, aiming to guide and rehabilitate the young offender. The focus is on restorative justice, which encourages juveniles to take responsibility for their actions and make amends to their victims and communities (Alarid, 2014, pp. 309). Contrarily, adult courts emphasize retribution, with a focus on punishing the offender in proportion to the crime committed. The formality and procedural strictness of adult courts further differentiate them from their juvenile counterparts.

Transfer to Adult Court

All states have provisions that allow for the transfer of juvenile cases to adult courts, particularly for serious and violent offenses. The criteria for such transfers often include the juvenile's age, the severity of the offense, and prior criminal records. Some states have automatic transfer laws, mandating transfer to adult court if these criteria are met. For example, the case of Cristian Fernandez, a 12-year-old from Jacksonville, Florida, drew national attention when he was charged as an adult for the murder of his step-brother. Florida is one of thirteen states without a minimum age for adult prosecution, highlighting the variability in state laws regarding juvenile transfers (Griffin, 2003, p. 6).

Historically, the early 1980s saw a wave of legal reforms aimed at addressing juvenile crime, including revisions to transfer laws. These laws generally categorize offenses eligible for transfer, such as capital crimes, violent felonies, and repeat offenses (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Transfers can occur through statutory exclusion, judicial waiver, or concurrent jurisdiction, each with its own procedural nuances (Alarid, 2014, pp. 305).

The Debate: Rehabilitation vs. Punishment

The practice of trying juveniles as adults is controversial, with arguments on both sides. Proponents of adult trials argue that certain crimes necessitate adult-level accountability, especially for repeat or violent offenders. However, critics emphasize the developmental differences between juveniles and adults, arguing that young offenders are more amenable to rehabilitation. The juvenile justice system was designed to accommodate these differences, focusing on rehabilitation and preventing future criminal behavior.

Furthermore, questions arise regarding the competency of juveniles to stand trial as adults. Concerns include their ability to understand the proceedings and the long-term impact of adult convictions, which can hinder rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate over trying juveniles as adults is multifaceted, encompassing legal, ethical, and developmental considerations. While the juvenile justice system prioritizes rehabilitation, adult courts focus on punishment, reflecting differing societal values and goals. The decision to transfer a juvenile to adult court should be carefully weighed, taking into account the nature of the offense, the juvenile's background, and the potential for rehabilitation. As society continues to grapple with these issues, a balanced approach that considers the unique needs of juvenile offenders while ensuring public safety is paramount. By fostering understanding and reform, the justice system can better serve both the individual and the community, aligning with the foundational principles of justice and fairness.

Did you like this example?

1426

59