There are three truths that both critics and advocates of juvenile justice have agreed upon. The first, children are fundamentally different from adults due to their lack of cognitive and moral decision making. Second, providing procedural protection and effective intervention has failed. Lastly, the juvenile justice system cannot only rely on its traditional foundation. Eliminating the juvenile court system and taking away diversion, intervention, prevention only induces the possibility of creating career criminals.
It's also wrong. While young people must be held accountable for serious crimes, the juvenile justice system exists for precisely that purpose. Funneling more youth into the adult system does no good and much harm. Juveniles are not adults, and saying so doesn't make it so. Besides, we don't really mean it: When we try them in criminal court, we do not deem them adults for other purposes, such as voting and drinking.
The Juvenile Court System may appear as a confusing subject for many. Many may think of it as saddening while others think of as beneficial. Some people may feel it’s unfair, while others may think it’s completely fair. Once a juvenile has committed a ‘delinquent’ offense, no one knows what may be going through his/her head. People have no clue of how that juvenile may live, or the things he or she may tolerate at home.
Nevertheless, when the wholesale transfer to criminal court of various classes of juvenile offenders that are defined solely by the charged offense starts to become the rule rather than the exception, we need to stop and take stock of what we are doing. I say this because this represents a fundamental challenge to the developmental premise on which the juvenile court was founded that adolescents and adults are different in ways that warrant their differential treatment under the law. Even though juveniles have different psychological thoughts they should still be trialed as adults because they are considered delinquents and I believe if they commit the crimes they should be trialed as any other adult would be. Juveniles sometimes
According to "Juvenile Court Procedure" (2012), "After committing an offense, juveniles are detained rather than arrested. Next, a petition is drawn up which outlines the jurisdiction authority of the juvenile court over the offense and detained individuals, gives notice for the reason for the court appearance, serves as notice to the minor's family, and also is the official charging document"(para 1). Moreover, juvenile offender cases are heard in family courts unlike adult cases that are heard in criminal court. In response, to all the information I provided, my opinion is that the juvenile process should definitely differ from the adult process. I think that juveniles should not receive a harsh of a process as adults because he or she are still kids themselves.
In some cases the pedophile is charged with a misdemeanor or a felony, and is required to serve time in a penitentiary for however long a judge decides is suitable. In some cases society has been less than pleased with the outcome of a pedophile’s punishment believing that it is not severe enough. Is the justice system sending the message that pedophilia is okay by giving registered sexual offenders a slap on the wrist? Will the time the offenders do honestly help them to recover and be able to live in society among children without urges? Pedophiles need to have a more serious punishment without levels, due to the effects they leave on children all around the world.
The Need for Harsher Sentencing for Convicted Sex Offenders In our day and age, I honestly believe that convicted sex offenders are not being punished sufficly. First off, the sentencings on some of the crime classifications are atrocious not only to the victims, but also to victims that have yet to go through the situation with their children. Second, not all crimes that are committed are subject to register to the sex offender list. Lastly, not all crimes that are committed are subject to life time monitoring, which in my opinion should be mandatory for if not all, most sexual acted crimes committed. To begin with, some of the sentencing for sex offenses is out of control.
Lost in the debate, according to Butts, are the significant costs borne by American youth as a result of current practices. First, the juvenile court no longer delivers on the promise of rehabilitation and low stigma for those processed in the traditional juvenile justice system. Second, current policies permit courts, corrections, and other agencies to ignore the inherent youthfulness of those defined as adults. Reflecting on these
The fact that some crimes are committed by individuals who are not yet mature enough to vote, drive, or even drink should not be ignored. Punishment for an adult can be unfair when applied to a child in some cases, especially when they don’t understand the consequences of their actions. When it comes to judgment of these crimes it should vary on a case to case basis. It should be taken into account whether the defendant’s crime was malicious, accidental or they could not understand the magnitude of their actions. Juvenile offenders should be tried and punished as adults do to the nature of the crime.
And for that, I agree with this law. But what I am afraid of is the other implications of this law. It could be interpreted in a wide scope. I could not foretell what other circumstances this law may favor convicts, and so suggest another law that may counteract this Double Jeopardy law. This is a downside to laws.