By Jamie Makey 9/18/13 Juveniles think, act, and understand life differently than adults. Juveniles respond differently to circumstances in their lives. Juveniles do not have the same rights and responsibilities that adults have. They often are not mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions. The law does recognize these differences, but, a Juvenile, like an adult, makes the choice to commit a crime or not.
Yet the law fails to distinguish between adolescents/children and adults when it comes to spending the rest of their lives in prison for crimes they have committed before their 18th birthday. Adolescents/children who break the law must be held accountable, however we cannot give up on the possibility that a still developing young person will reform. Justice and financial responsibility both demand a more thoughtful approach. When adolescents/children commit crimes, does he/she instantly become an adult? Or does he maintain some of his/her childhood, despite his/her actions?
The mentally ill do not want or ask to be sick. As with “When Kids Get Life”, we are filling our jails and prisons with people unable to make conscience mature decisions. Why are there so few mental facilities? Was it not thought out, where would all of these patients go and what would they
It will also discuss how focusing on rehabilitation instead of punishment will affect different aspects of society and the criminal justice system. The juvenile justice system has had its ups and downs. In some years it was thought that having harsher punishment for the juveniles was the ideal answer. During the Clinton administration, crime rates rose for juveniles and congressional leaders demanded tougher treatment for juvenile felons, including more incarceration in both adult and youth correctional facilities (Krisberg, 2008). Although President Clinton passed bills to push for harsher punishment for juveniles before it could go into effect, the juvenile crime rates dropped.
Jeffrey Butts, in "Can We Do Without Juvenile Justice?" asks whether a separate juvenile justice system is still feasible. Considering the arguments for and against the abolition of the court, he notes the universally accepted fact that modern day juvenile courts have grown increasingly indistinguishable from adult courts. Further, he describes the various procedures enacted by legislators to impose crime-based rather than individual-based sanctions upon young offenders. Lost in the debate, according to Butts, are the significant costs borne by American youth as a result of current practices.
The programs, once drafted and approved, would receive federal funding. The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act was made before the extensive Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act that replaced it in 1974 (Taylor&Fritsch,2011).This must have been a big changing point because not only is it for the juveniles, but the community getting involved shows that they care about how the juveniles grow up and recidivism is their biggest concern. From society’s point of view, the due process model didn’t really work effectively. The problem was, children were committing serious crimes and continuing to do it after punishment. The next step the system approached was “get tough” legislation that started in the 1970’s and is still used today.
The federal government has played a main role in the juvenile justice system and all the drastic changes that have taken effect over the course of the years. The changes first began with the separation of juveniles from adults in court rooms as well as jails. This change was probably in my opinion that one that had the most positive influence because that meant young kids weren’t going to be locked up in jail or prison with murders, rapist, and all types of other convicts. Juveniles being locked up with adult criminals was insane and I cannot imagine how much of a negative influence that had on the youth. The young being
Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults? The article “Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults” by Terry A. Maroney describes the relation of teens and the criminal system. She believes that teens are not adults and that they do not have the mentality or righteousness as an adult. Saying a child or teen is an adult does not make them one. She continues on to say that it is proven that teens are more likely to be influenced by peer pressure.
Assessing the effectiveness of the criminal justice system when dealing with young offenders in relation to the source SMH. The Criminal Justice System subjects children to the same criminal law as it does adults. However, they are treated differently as that, there is a certain age at which it is believed to be that the child is too young to cause criminal intent. This age limit in NSW is ten years old. It is believed that at this age the child is unable to possess Mens Rea, this is referred to as Doli Incapax.
(OJJDP 1994). Intensive supervision programs contain a wide range of programs and plans for the juvenile. Although ISP’s are used more commonly in the adult correctional system, ISP’s programs are aimed at the more serious offenders are being welcomed as an option in the juvenile justice systems throughout the country. According to the OJJDP, “The definition of juvenile offender varies among programs. For example, the chronic juvenile offender refers to the individual who began his or her delinquent career at an early age, has numerous minor offenses and for whom regular probation has been ineffective.” They believe that the ISP’s can work for those juveniles who have committed more serious but nonviolent offenses as well.