Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System

The statistics be striking. In 2002 alone, one in dozen murders in the U. S. twisty a insubstantial offender (Snyder and Sickmund p. 65). Half of high school seniors (51%) surveyed in 2003 give tongue to they had tried illicit drugs at least once (Snyder and Sickmund p. 75). About 9% of murders in the U. S. were committed by jejuneness nether 18 in 2000 and an estimated 1561 youth low the while of 18 were arrested for homicide in 2000 (Fox). juvenility under 18 accounted for about 15% of blood-red abuse arrests in 2001 (FBI).One national survey shew that for every teen arrested, at least 10 were engaged in violence that could have bad injured or killed a nonher individual. (US Dept. of Health and Human Services). The alarming numbers continue just straight bequeath a question mark on the propensity and effectiveness of live US jejune laws, force for an inclination towards adopting crowing honestness systems in youth offender cases. Yet, alongside these figures are far much(prenominal) alarming statistics. While juvenile crimes are persistent, it is also true that one of every four violent crime victims known to law enforcement is a juvenile (Snyder and Sickmund p.31). Suicide is the third leading cause of end among teenagers. In fact, 1921 young people ages 10 to 19 died by suicide in the unify States in 2000 (Centers for Disease sway and Prevention). In fact, about 1 in 11 high-school students say they have establish a suicide attempt in 1999(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention p. 6). And, officials have reported that of the much than 2,800 sexual violence all(prenominal)egations in juvenile facilities in 2004, 3 in 10 were substantiated (Snyder and Sickmund p. 230).A juvenile offender is one who is considered too young to be tried as an liberal. Typically, the age at which a person skunk be tried as an boastful varies among declares, but ordinarily, it is the age of seventeen or eighteen, although this age can go dow n for certain serious offenses, such as homicide or sexual fall upon (Larson). When charged with a lamentable offense, a juvenile is sent to a juvenile court where he may either waive his right and be tried under mature criminal systems. ideally and ordinarily, the focus is on what ordain rehabilitate the juvenile, rather than on punishment.For juvenile offenses, the juvenile are oft said to have committed a delinquent act, as opposed to a criminal offense. (Larson). Although the juvenile court has broad discretion to tailor a sentence to the needs of a young offender this juveniles are still sentenced to prison. In fact, many estates have large juvenile prisons and treatment facilities. The principle is that that the kick in criminal justice system believes that both(prenominal) juvenile offenders are very dangerous, despite their age, that incarceration seemed to be appropriate.While most of the policymakers and the press claim that an increment in the youth population s hall also result in the rate of juvenile offenses, a lot of considerations need to be addressed. Justifications, as will be discussed later, however, boiling point down to one conclusion- when a juvenile commits an adult crime, he should not be required to impudence the consequences as an adult. In an effort to derive justifications why youth offenders should not be tried under adult criminal justice systems, several propositions are laid out below based on recent studies 1. young person are developmentally different from adults 2. Incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails is dangerous to the juvenile offenders 3. youth incarceration in adult jails does not reduce crime rate 4. Trying juvenile offenders and heroic death punishment to youth offenders is unconstitutional. These are discussed in detail in the quest sections. callowness are developmentally different from adults The basic principle of equality of rights is commonly understood to mean that persons who are as we ll as situated shall be treated the same under the law.A close analysis of adult and youth offender profiles however suggests that adult and youth criminal offenders are not similarly situated so much so that existing adult justice systems should be liberally applied if not totally abolished as against juvenile offenders. Psychologists and lawyers have raised significant and recent studies in the juvenile brain in viewing the existing juvenile laws. An eff in point is whether a teenager who commits capital offenses can be put to death or whether this would be cruel and unusual punishment, illegalize by the Constitutions eighth amendment.The point is, adolescents are not morally culpable as adults because their brains are not as capable of impulse control, decision-making, and reasoning as adult brains are. Psychologists say that this is because the brains frontal lobe, which exercises restraint over impulsive behavior, doesnt begin to mature until 17 old age of age, says neuro scientist Ruben Gur of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The very part of the brain that is judged by the legal system process comes on board late. Other than this, adults behave differently not just because they have different brain structures, but because they use the structures in a different way ( Beckman ). Because of these social and biological reasons, an article in conviction Magazine read, teens have increased difficulty making mature decisions and understanding the consequences of their actions. With much of these studies leaning towards the contiguous fact that juveniles are not as mentally developed as the adult offenders, it is but decorous that minors should never be tried as adults and should be spared the death penalty.Incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails is dangerous to the juvenile offenders It is a fact that despite a federal law preventing juveniles from adult jails existing for over three decades, 7,500 youth are in adult jails, accord ing to a report released by the Campaign for Youth referee. It must be reconsidered that rather than rehabilitating the youth offenders, incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails poses much(prenominal) danger to the juvenile. In fact, they are exposed to these dangers even before theyve had their day in court (Campaign for Youth Justice).Incarceration exposes the youthful offender to sexual assault. Officials reported that of more than 2,800 sexual violence allegations in juvenile facilities in 2004, 3 in 10 were substantiated with girls more likely than boys to be sexually victimized (Snyder and Sickmund p. 229). In 2005, 21% of all substantiated victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence were under eighteen years old, even though youth make up less than 1% of the total jail population (Campaign for Youth Justice).Likewise, incarceration in adult are at greater risk of suicide than similar youth in theU. S. population (Snyder and Sickmund p. 229). In fact, youth have the hig hest suicide order of all inmates in jails. They are 36 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than in a juvenile clench facility, and 19 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than youth in the general population (Campaign for Youth Justice). Finally, jailing juveniles in adult facilities are counterproductive and even increases their likelihood of reoffending.Based on studies, children who are prosecuted in adult court are more likely to be rearrested more often and more quickly for serious offenses(Campaign for Youth Justice). Youth incarceration in adult jails does not reduce crime rate While it is true that juvenile population in the US is change magnitude similarly to other segments of the population such that population projections indicate that the juvenile proportion of the U. S. population will hold constant through 2050 (Snyder and Sickmund p. 2), it is not true that this increase would also result in the increase in juvenile crime rate.In a n analysis conducted based on official crime statistics of youth offenders in California from 1970 to 1998, Macallair and Males said that the prevalent claim that the rising teenage population means more crime and violence is a myth (2000). According to them, the current crime trends among youths are indication of declining crime rates into the next century and suggest a reevaluation of current trends in youth crime policies and reexamination of popular assumptions based on these statistics. Death penalty to juvenile crimes is unconstitutionalThe truth of the matter is that all states in the US now allow certain juveniles to be tried in criminal court or differently face adult sanctions (Snyder and Sickmund p. 110). More over, the federal consititutionality of the American juvenile death penalty was a fair settled issue for the past 15 years. This is a serious matter that poses more danger to juvenile offenders in facing adult consequences. It is a good thing however, that the Un ited States Supreme Court has now expressed a renewed interest in reconsidering this issue with state courts getting more involved as well. In Thompson v.Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that executions of offenders age 15 and younger at the time of their crimes are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Death Penalty Information Center). In Simmons v. Roper, 112 S. W. 3d 397 (Mo. 2003), the Supreme Court of atomic number 42 interpreted current national data to hold that the death penalty for juvenile offenders now violates the United States Constitutions prohibition against roughshod and Unusual Punishment. They however did not reach the issue under the Missouri State Constitution.Although a ruling on federal constitutionality, Simmons applies only in Missouri at this juncture. In the meantime, the two prevailing issues before the Supreme Court is whether the lower court can subsequently reinterpret and reject the standards under evolving standards of decency once the United States Supreme Court sets the Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual standard and whether death penalty for a 17-year-old offender is now Cruel and Unusual under the Eighth Amendments evolving standard of decency (Death Penalty Information Center).In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court (5-4) upheld the Missouri Supreme Court and banned the death penalty for juvenile offenders, Roper v. Simmons (2005). With this as precedence, it is but delinquent time for states to also reconsider the adverse consequences of juvenile commitment in adult prisons. Conclusion With all the issues raised above, it is but horrible why juvenile offenders should be tried under adult criminal justice systems. It is but due time that existing state policies be revisited and amended to adjust to the need of youthful offenders.In the meantime, since the present state policies on juvenile offenders are already in place, it is only but fitting to reconsider s ome adjustments in existing policies if at least to address and prevent these dangers until such time that the federal and state systems are ready for the new, more effective and revitalized policies. In referring to the special circumstance of juvenile offenders, the following recommendations were given in an ABA Task Force Report in 2001 Since youth are developmentally different from adults, these developmental differences need to be taken into account at all stages and in all aspects of the adult criminal justice system. Pretrial release or detention decisions regarding youth awaiting trial in adult criminal court should reflect their special characteristics. If detained or incarcerated, youth in the adult criminal justice system should be housed in institutions or facilities separate from adult facilities until at least their eighteenth birthday. Youth detained or incarcerated in the adult criminal justice system should be provided programs which address their educational, tre atment, health, mental health, and vocational needs. The right to counsel in the adult criminal justice system should not be waived by a youth without consultation with a lawyer and without a full inquiry into the youths comprehension of the right and capacity to make the choice intelligently, voluntarily and understandingly. If the right to counsel is voluntarily waived, stand-by counsel should always be appointed. Judges in the adult criminal justice system should consider the individual characteristics of the youth during sentencing. The corroboratory consequences normally attendant to the adult criminal justice process should not necessarily apply to all youth arrested for crimes committed before the age of eighteen. (ABA p. 2) In sum, trying youth offenders under the adult criminal justice system is not safe, is not fair and does not work (Youth for Justice p. 4) and should therefore be guarded against. Rather than considering the youth as vices of the community, they should be looked upon as needing of societys support.Works Cited Beckman, Mary. Crime, Culpability and the childish Brain. Death Penalty Information Center. 30 July 2004. Science Magazine. 10 border 2008. . Fox, James Alan. , Zawitz, Marianne W. Homicide Trends in the United States. US Department of Justice. 2002. Northeastern University and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 11 March 2008. http//www.ojp. usdoj. gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd. htm. Larson, Aaron. Juvenile Offenders. LawExperts. March 2000. 10 March 2008. . Snyder, Howard N. , and Sickmund, Melissa. Juvenile Offenders and Victims 2006 National Report. Death Penalty Information Center. 2006. Washington, DC U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 11 March 2008 . Wallis, Claudia and Dell, Kristina.What Makes Teens Tick A flood of hormones, sure. entirely also a host of structural changes in the brain. Can those explain the behaviors that make adolescence so provokeand so exasperating? Death Penalty Information Center. 10 May 2004. Time Magazine. 10 March 2008. . Youth in the sinful Justice System An ABA Task Force Report. American Bar Association. February 2002. Criminal Justice Section. 9 March 2008. Youth risk behavior surveillance United States, 2001. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002. In CDC Surveillance Summaries. June 28, 2002. MMWR, 51(SS-4), p. 6. 10 March 2008. . Youth Violence A Report of the Surgeon General. decision maker Summary. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. p. vii. Comparison of data from the Monitoring the Future Study from the University of Michigans Institute for well-disposed Research and data from the FBIs Uniform Crime Reporting program. 11 March 2008. http//www. surgeongeneral. gov/library/youthviolence/summary. htm.