Criminal Justice in America
Introduction
There have been dramatic changes in recent years concerning the view of juvenile crime by the general public and policymakers. Widespread changes in practices and polices regarding treatment of juvenile offenders have resulted due to the changing views. The society has opted to redefine juvenile as adults rather than defining crimes committed by youth as delinquent acts. Most jurisdictions have decided to transfer juveniles to adult courts. A rebuttal essay on trial of juvenile offenders as adults in the criminal justice system will be presented.
Discussion
Trying juvenile offenders in the adult criminal system can be viewed from a developmental perspective. Current discussions concerning trial of juveniles in adult courts are about the harmfulness and seriousness of the offences and not about the characteristics of the offender. All these discussions consider the age of the offender to be irrelevant. There is a mantra on the get-tough-on-juvenile crime lobby and this mantra does not say anything about the offender’s age. It instead states about the irrelevancy of the offender’s age (Cole and Smith, 2007).
Logically, it is impossible for the age of the offender to be considered irrelevant in discussions concerning the criminal justice policy. A punishment that is fair to an adult should be considered unfair when it is applied to a child who lacks an understanding or the consequences of the actions done. There should be variations in interpretation and application of laws in a case involving a defendant who has a limited understanding of law due to intellectual immaturity or emotional immaturity resulting to impaired judgment. Moreover there are different implications and consequences for harsh punishments to the juveniles and adults (Cole, 2007).
Several concerns regarding the competence of juveniles to take part in criminal courts have been raised. It is not appropriate to assume that adolescents are competent enough to protect their own interests in adult courts despite the fact that majority of individuals aged 13 years are likely to meet the criteria for minimal competence. A criminal court is an inappropriate venue for determining an adolescent’s disposition if the adolescent in question does not have knowledge and understanding, reasoning ability or appreciation to make sound decisions regarding their trial (Siegel and Welsh, 2008).
There are three sets of implications resulting from the transfer of juveniles to criminal court. First of all, the process by which a minor is tried changes following transfer to adult courts. Juvenile court is based on a more cooperative model while an adversarial model is the basis for criminal court. There is a great significance for this difference since it is not clear on the age at which an individual has enough knowledge and understanding concerning the ramifications associated with the adversarial models. It is possible for juvenile offenders not to have the ability to defend themselves in adult courts due to the complicated trial processes that are beyond their understanding (Layzell, 2005).
The second implication of trying juveniles in adult courts is that there are different legal standards applied in juvenile and adult courts. A good example is that there is a presumption of competence to stand trial among adult offenders except in cases of substantial mental retardation or serious mental illnesses. It is however unclear whether there is the presumption for competence in juvenile offenders, who may lack competence to participate in the adjudicative process even in the absence of mental illness or retardation. Moreover, there may be different culpability judging standards in adult and juvenile courts. Adults are presumed to be responsible for their own behavior in the absence of substantial deficiency or mental illness. The extent of application of this presumption is unknown in the case of juveniles. It also unclear whether there is a different validity of presumption as a function of the age of the juvenile offender (Watkins, 2008).
The final implication is that the possible outcome of the adjudication is dependant on the choice of trying a young offender in adult versus juvenile court. The outcome of being found guilty is often some form of punishment in adult court. Though the outcome of juvenile court may be some form of punishment, there is always the option of rehabilitative disposition. Juveniles are better candidates for rehabilitation because they are more amenable to treatment compared to adults. There is a presumption of offenders as amenable in juvenile courts while in adult courts, there is no presumption of amenability unless it is shown by the counsel of the defendant. This implies that there are different presumptions brought to the table by decision makers within the adult and juvenile justice systems. The presumptions of the juvenile court are that offenders are not mature in their judgment, character and development. Adult courts on the contrary presume that the defendants are competent, mature, responsible and less likely to change (Siegel, 2008).
Based on developmental research, raising serious concerns about the transfer of individuals of 12 years and below is appropriate. There is a possibility for such individuals failing to prove to be sufficiently blameworthy and hence exposure to the harsh consequences associated with criminal court adjudication due to their limited adjudicative competence. Due to the above reason, such individuals need to be considered juveniles regardless on the seriousness of the offense. This however is not an implication that such juvenile offenders should be left unpunished. It rather implies that such offenders need to be held responsible for their actions and punished within the juvenile courts and not adult courts (Layzell, 2005).
Children as young as 9 years have the ability of differentiating right from wrong and the capacity for intentional behavior. Therefore such children should be held responsible and punished for their offenses. It is at the same time evident that majority of individuals who are below the age of 12 lacks a certain degree of psychological and intellectual capabilities that are required so as s to hold an individual entirely accountable for offenses committed under given conditions. On the other hand, individuals aged 16years have psychosocial and intellectual capacities that allow exercising good judgment even under circumstances that prove to be difficult. A good example to illustrate this fact is that peer pressure is more likely to be a mitigating factor for an individual aged 12 and less likely in the case of a 17 year old individual (Cole, 2007).
It is appropriate to make a conclusion that there is no difference between adults and a wide majority of individuals older than 16 years of age when it comes to adjudication within the criminal justice system. It is appropriate for there to be individual assessment of an offender’s competence to trial among individuals older than 12 but younger then 16 years. Moreover, before reaching a decision to transfer juveniles into adult courts, there should be assessment of likely amenability and blameworthiness of the offender. Permission should be granted to relevant decision-makers such as prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys to determine the eligibility and maturity of individual offenders prior to transfer to adult courts (Watkins, 2008)..
Well, it is true that a crime is a crime regardless of whether it is committed by adult or juvenile offender. Despite this argument, it is important to note that there are many situations that require examination of mitigating factors when trying an offender for instance, emotional distress, insanity, or self-defense. Developmentally normative immaturity should be considered a mitigating factor when the offender is below the age of 16. There are varying opinions regarding the extent to which and the age at which there should be consideration of the offender’s age when making court decisions. It is therefore inappropriate for court decisions to be made by entirely ignoring the age of the offender (Siegel, 2008). Though, most of the jurisdictions do so, it is can clearly be noted that something is amiss. In order to avoid the various complications, it is appropriate for juveniles and adults be tried in different court systems.
Conclusion
Though research concerning the transfer of juveniles into adult courts is underway, it is appropriate for any youngster under the age of 12 not to be tried in an adult court. Evaluation of individuals between the ages of 12 and 16 should be done in order to determine their adjudicative competence prior to making the final court decision. When making decisions about juveniles fates that may have life-long consequences, judges need to have solid information about a child and adolescent development as well as the flexibility of using the information during the decision making process.
References
Cassel, E., & Bernstein, D. A. (2007). Criminal behavior. Routledge
Cole, G. F., & Smith, C. E. (2007). Criminal Justice in America (5th Ed). Cengage Learning
Layzell, J. (2005). Should juveniles be tried as adults? Greenhaven Press.
Watkins, C. (2008). Should Juveniles be tried as adults? Greenhaven Press
Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2008). Juvenile Delinquency. Theory, Law and Practice. Cengage Learning
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
