Arguments for and Against Juvenile Courts

Arguments for and Against Juvenile Courts Introduction In the United States we have two parallel systems that deal with individuals that commit crimes and or offenses against society. First we have the criminal justice system, a court which deals with adults who commit various crimes. Secondly, we have the juvenile justice system, a court designed especially for minors and is generally thought to help rehabilitate the offender. The salient difference between these two systems, as Mitcheal Ritter puts it, â€Å"is the use of distinct terminology to refer to their similar procedures. State and federal legislatures intended this terminological variation to avoid stigmatizing children as â€Å"criminals† and to dissociate the juvenile system from the criminal justice system† (Ritter 2010, 222). The major issue I intend to look at it is whether or not we should abolish the juvenile justice system. First, we will look at the position of keeping the current system, why it needs to stay in place, and why in the long r un it is the most beneficial to the juvenile. Second, we will examine the research of Barry Feld, one of the most influential advocates on why it needs to be abolished because of the lack of constitutional rights that a juvenile does not receive while being tried under the Juvenile justice system. Thirdly, I will be looking at each party’s positions and critiquing it to see it what the strong and weak points are. Finally, I will present my own opinion on whether to keep it, abolish it, or create a whole new system altogether. Presentation of Position A: Do Not Abolish the Juvenile System To try a juvenile in adult court is by no means the right decision. In this section we will look at evidence and arguments on why the juvenile justice system should not be abolished. Juveniles are different from adults and therefore should not be allowed to stand trial in the criminal justice system. Children are not well enough developed mentally, as compared to an adult, to be tried in the adult correctional system. This is why many people take the stance, â€Å"no way should we get rid of the juvenile justice system.† The â€Å"director of the state’s (Washington) Bureau of Juvenile Detention Services is seeking to keep 16- and 17-year-old offenders out of the state’s criminal justice system† (McNeil 2008). To lock up a child in an adult correction facility is by no means the right idea even if they are â€Å"separate† from the adults. If a juvenile commits an â€Å"adult crime† like robbery, theft or in most cases drug crimes, a quick fix is to incarcerate that individual in an adult prison to punish him and protect society. While this may work for adults, it is inappropriate for a youth. Advocates argue that we must keep the juvenile justice system because â€Å"many studies also have found that significantly harsher punishments are meted out to juveniles in adult court when compared with juveniles in juvenile court, parti cularly for serious or violent offenses† (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 727). Sending a juvenile to adult court at such a young age can be problematic for the child, because the court wants to be strict with the child by showing them that their behavior will not be tolerated and because in adult court the child will miss out on educational and rehabilitative programs more readily available in juvenile detention facilities. Kurlycheck and Johnson argue that â€Å"Juvenile courts are characterized by disposition options that fundamentally differ from adult courts in their symbolic meaning, punitive and treatment alternatives, and punishment goals† (2010). In a study in Pennsylvania, Kurlycheck and Johnson compared a sample of juveniles tried in juvenile court with juveniles who were transferred to adult court and showed that the adult courts were harsher on the juvenile: â€Å"On average, their sentences were 80 percent more severe than for their young adult counterpartsà ¢â‚¬  (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729).