Is the juvenile justice system rehabilitation or punishment
Brief history
In the late 1970s, children aged seven years and below were assumed not to have any criminal intentions and this idea has persisted up to the present time. In the 19th century, there was rise of movements aggravated by the 16th century European education reform movements which changed the idea of a child being a miniature adult to an individual who has not achieved full development of cognitive capacity. These movements resulted in separation of minor offenders from adult offenders in most prisons and jails in the US. Illinois was the first state in the US to establish the juvenile court after passing the Juvenile Court Act of 1899. Juvenile court in Illinois was located in Cook County. Applying the British principle which regards the state as a parent, the act enabled the state to handle the juveniles differently from the way it was handling adults. Much emphasis was put on the wellbeing of the aberrant child, who was perceived to be lacking justice systems caring involvement (Sheffer, 1995).
By the year 1925, most states in the US had passed the same law. As opposed to adult criminal system, juvenile justice system handles juvenile offenders with consideration on both the legal and non legal matters like environment where the child lives. In 1960, there was a widespread public concern on the success of juvenile courts in transforming juvenile offenders because of the rising number of young offenders who were being held forever while being rehabilitated (Champion, 1998).
In 1974, the congress voted for another act, The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. This act required separation of juvenile offenders from adult criminals and also juvenile delinquents charged with more serious offences from those charged with light offences. This act led to the development and extension of community based programs instead of institutionalization. Ten years later, there was a rise in serious juvenile crimes and this was attributed to leniency with which the offenders were being treated. These views of the public led to the withdrawal of some kinds of offences from the juvenile court system in 1990s. Juveniles charged with serious crimes were tried in adult courts (Sheffer, 1995).
As much as the present juvenile justice systems in most of the states are now similar to adult criminal justice system, they are two separate systems of justice which were founded on different backgrounds. Unlike the adult criminal system which is mainly focused on punishment, juvenile justice system focuses on the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. This is because children are in the process of developing and are not responsible for their actions. It is also believed that for children to get involved in criminal activities there must be some extrinsic forces like poor parenting and environmental influence. Juvenile criminality is viewed as some form of youthful illness which could only be cured by provision of a good family life. These are the philosophies upon which juvenile criminal system was created (Jenson Howard, 1998).
Regardless of the common features now shared between the juvenile court system and that of adults, the juvenile system has tried to preserve its distinctive characteristics which symbolize its original goals of individualized treatment and rehabilitation. Juvenile courts have refused to adopt structural changes it believed would jeopardize the distinctive benefits of the juvenile justice system. Juveniles are not supposed to undergo jury trials in almost all the states this is because the courts believe that juries could be disruptive to the informal condition of juvenile courts. According to the Supreme Court, juveniles may be detained without bail as they wait for judgment since preventive detention is meant to protect the juvenile and the society but not to offer punishment. The Supreme Court failed to tackle the disposition phase of juvenile courts and this allows the juvenile court judges with a wide range of sentencing authority. The sanctions imposed by juvenile court judges may be uncertain and can also be based on legal and illegal factors (Champion, 1998).
Recent changes in juvenile justice systems
In the1990s, the cases of juvenile crimes skyrocketed and many states responded to the rising public concern by moving beyond the supreme courts changes to the structure of juvenile justice systems by amending their juvenile justice laws to put much emphasis on punishment and deterrence and little attention to rehabilitation of individual youth. The most recent revision on the juvenile justice laws have resulted in numerous different forms. In most states, juvenile justice laws now permit increased transfer of juvenile offenders from juvenile courts to adult courts, and this indicates increase in the number of juvenile cases juvenile courts are receiving and reduced self-reliance in the juvenile court proceedings (ONeil, 2005).
The major change in juvenile court system is the increased rate of transfer of cases to adult courts where punishments offered are more severe and less individualized. Between the years 1992 and 1997, approximately 44 states and District of Columbia passed a law increasing the transfer of power over juveniles. Most states accepted by reducing the minimum age at which a juvenile court may not insist on jurisdiction. In the state of Missouri, the legislature reduced the minimum age for transfer from 14 to 12, Indiana lowered its age from 16 to 10. In 1997, 22 states including District of Columbia scrapped off the minimum age requirement from their laws for at least one way of transferring power to adult court (ONeil, 2005).
Another major change in juvenile court system is the expansion of the types of transfer mechanisms which are possible for juvenile courts. Apart from the traditional judicial surrender of authority, in which the juvenile court judge could transfer the juvenile at his her own judgment, but also under certain situation waiver at the judgment of the prosecutor or, compulsory waiver needed by a particular legislation. The waiver of power to adult courts are as a result of the parliaments tough measures on crime and shows the tendency of imposing more punishment on the young offenders with an aim to discourage young people from engaging in violent crimes (Jenson Howard, 1998).
In addition to expansion of ways of transferring jurisdiction to adult courts, the states are working on ways of broadening the types of sentences the juvenile offenders can receive regardless of the trying court. By commanding more serious sanctions on young offenders for some crimes committed, states have made punishment and prevention the main concern of juvenile justice system. The types of sentences and dispositions commanded on juvenile offenders have been expanded in four major ways. Many courts are currently extending the judgment of juveniles until they reach twenty one years from the traditionally eighteen years (Jenson Howard, 1998).
The courts have also resorted to offering determinate judgment according to the nature of the offence as it appears in the law. Initially, the juvenile courts judgments were focused on rehabilitation and the personal needs of the offender, but the disposition was different in both severity and duration. The tendency of being hard on crime has resulted in more standardized, statutorily defined sentences for juveniles that are dependent on the crime committed with the aim of punishing the offender and to discourage future offenders. From 1992 to 1997, about 16 states added or strengthened the laws empowering juvenile courts to command compulsory minimum detention for juvenile defendants found guilty of some violent crimes. In the state of Texas, if a court finds a juvenile guilty of at least one of the statutory defined crimes, the court may surrender the juvenile to Texas Youth Commission with a possibility of being transferred to adult prisons. In the adult prisons, individuals found guilty can be sentenced to ten, twenty or even forty years in prison (Champion, 1998).
Most states allow juvenile offenders to receive adult punishment. If the juvenile court transfers its powers to adult court and the juvenile offender is found guilty of the crime, the adult court may decide to pass the sentence which is appropriate for the offence committed. In the state of New Mexico, even if the jurisdiction is not transferred to adult court, the juvenile court judge may still decide to pass an adult sentence on the minor found guilty. In this state, the juvenile court has powers to impose either an adult or juvenile sentence to a juvenile offender. For a judge to settle on adult punishment, the court must be sure that the juvenile offender is not acquiescent to treatment or rehabilitation in the juvenile institutions (ONeil, 2005).
Reasons for treating juveniles as adults
According to the recent increase in the incidents of juvenile violence such as shootings, the public is becoming concerned about their safety. The most recent incident of juvenile violence occurred in Littleton, Colorado where fifteen children were shot dead and twenty three serious injured. The children who were involved in this shooting were just eleven and thirteen years old. Since they were younger than fourteen at the time of the incident, the Arkansas law prevented their transfer to adult court but they received a juvenile detention in a juvenile facility until they reach the age of twenty one. In order to reduce juvenile crime, the juvenile justice system should expand its focus beyond its original goal of rehabilitation to punishment and deterrence. Doing away with juvenile justice system and replacing it with community based programs and incorporating a blended sentencing are not effective enough to bring the much needed reform in youths. The practice of transferring juveniles to adult courts over certain types of crime together with blended sentencing to other juvenile offenders provides a good example of a system which both protects the society from violent crimes committed by youths and also providing punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation to the offenders (Champion, 1998).
Conclusion
There have been cases of children involving themselves in criminal acts knowing exactly what they are going to do. An example is a case of a boy who had told his classmates that he was planning to shoot someone and have been practicing shooting at targets before shooting and killing a stranger. After the act the boy went home, watched television and bragged to his classmates. Owing to the fact that the boy was just 11 years when he committed this crime, the public got worried. The most hurting thing is that the boy will be detained in the juvenile facilities until he attains twenty one years and then released. Such kinds of sentences are viewed by the public as being too lenient considering the fact that the rate of delinquent behavior is on the rise. In response to the public cry, the states have revised the juvenile justice system to include deterrence and punishment in addition to its original goal of rehabilitation.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment