Should Juveniles be Tried as Adults Pros and Cons

How much more does the juvenile delinquency rate have to rise before we realize action is required? The juvenile court system, established with the noble intention of rehabilitating young offenders, has become a subject of debate over its effectiveness in contemporary society. With rising concerns over juvenile delinquency, it is crucial to evaluate whether the system's intended purpose of individualized treatment and rehabilitation is being fulfilled. Many argue that the current system inadvertently encourages youth to exploit it, believing they can escape stricter consequences for violent crimes, as noted by Berg (2020).

The harsh reality of losing lives, personal security, and resources due to juvenile crime is a pressing issue that demands urgent action.

It is essential to consider that young offenders may not fully comprehend the gravity of their actions or the profound impact their crimes have on victims. However, those who commit violent acts should be encouraged to empathize with the bereaved, understanding the pain and horror experienced by victims' families. While opinions differ on how the justice system should handle juvenile cases, it is crucial to remember that age is not always a determinant of culpability. Dangerous behaviors in minors should not be overlooked, and justice must be served equitably, regardless of age.

Research suggests that in certain cases, juveniles should be tried as adults. Proponents argue that this approach could deter further offenses by reinforcing the seriousness of criminal actions. According to data from the Office of Justice Programs, 810,000 juveniles were arrested in the US in 2017 alone (Lehmann, Chiricos, and Bales, 2018, p. 574). Despite a 58% decrease since 2008, this figure remains alarmingly high. By adopting an adult court approach, it is believed that juvenile crime rates could decrease, benefiting society at large. Critics of the juvenile court system argue that it has become outdated and overly lenient, allowing young offenders to evade meaningful consequences. Without accountability, these individuals may escalate to committing more severe crimes, such as murder or mass violence. Behavioral monitoring programs that implement strict punishments for regular criminals could serve as a deterrent for young offenders, potentially preventing future crimes.

Furthermore, trying juvenile offenders in adult courts can offer justice for both the offender and the victim's loved ones. When a young offender is held accountable, victims' families may find solace in knowing that the perpetrator is no longer a threat. Regardless of the criminal's age, the family and public may still feel endangered when justice is not served, leading to a demand for protection. The trauma experienced by victims and their families can result in heightened vigilance and fear for personal safety.

The justice system is designed to prevent criminals from reoffending. Allowing juveniles to face minimal consequences for their actions sends the wrong message, teaching them that they can act without regard for repercussions. Eren and Mocan (2021, p. 39) highlight that individuals with criminal backgrounds often return to crime after their release, emphasizing the importance of effective deterrence. As minors transition into adulthood, they may find themselves facing legal trouble due to the severity of their offenses. Lethal violence is increasingly prevalent among young people aged 16 to 24, who are both perpetrators and victims of violence. In adult courts, juveniles face trial before a jury, ensuring multiple perspectives are considered. If the jury agrees, the offender is more likely to receive appropriate punishment.

However, there are significant disadvantages to trying juveniles as adults. Firstly, young offenders often lack the competency and understanding of the legal system and the consequences of their actions. Placing them in adult facilities exposes them to genuine risks, including physical assault, sexual abuse, and suicide, as highlighted by Regoli (2019). Critics argue that such a drastic change in the justice system compromises the safety and well-being of those under 18.

Additionally, minors typically commit less severe crimes, often stemming from emotional immaturity and a lack of understanding. Incarcerating them in adult facilities may not yield positive outcomes. Without access to rehabilitation, these individuals may become more violent over time, potentially escalating to more serious offenses (Schwartz, 2018, p. 47). The intention of incarceration is to teach a lesson, but there is a risk of adverse outcomes, such as increased violence and recidivism.

Opponents of trying juveniles as adults argue that making mistakes is a normal part of adolescence. Many young offenders may have been influenced by peer pressure or momentary anger (Buss, 2022, p. 847). While it is essential to hold individuals accountable for their actions, incarceration may not always be the most effective solution. Even adults make mistakes, and it is crucial to offer minors the opportunity to learn what is right and wrong.

In conclusion, allowing young offenders to escape consequences based on age alone is a ticking time bomb. It is imperative that juveniles receive appropriate punishment that reflects the severity of their crimes, encouraging them to learn from their mistakes. By addressing juvenile delinquency through a more stringent judicial approach, society can aim to reduce crime rates and prevent future violent acts. Charging young offenders as adults, when appropriate, can serve as a protective measure against the escalation of violent crimes, ultimately contributing to a safer society.

Did you like this example?

2022

84