juvenile justice
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, “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 "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 run 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.
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, “no way should we get rid of the juvenile justice system.” The “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 “separate” from the adults.
If a juvenile commits an “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 “many studies also have found that significantly harsher punishments are meted out to juveniles in adult court when compared with juveniles in juvenile court, particularly 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 “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: “On average, their sentences were 80 percent more severe than for their young adult counterparts” (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729).
Juveniles should not be allowed to be tried in adult court because studies have shown that many “juveniles function at levels similar to disabled adults who lack competence; not because of diagnosable mental health problems, but because of developmental immaturity” (Katner 2006, 507). The theory that sentencing a youth to an adult prison will reduce recidivism and hope that the experience will “scare him straight,” is invalid. Research shows that “experiences with adult jails and prisons show that those facilities may instill fear but are otherwise emotionally—and often physically—dangerous for youth” (Butler 2011, 114). Finally, Frank Zimring argued that “young law violators are less culpable, and thus deserve less punishment—no matter what kind of court might try and sentence them” (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729). Kurlycheck and Johnson also confirm what Katner is saying by explaining that “adolescents are at psychosocial disadvantages in terms of responsibility, peer influence, temperance, and perspective; they are less able to foresee future consequences of their actions” (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729). Youths in the detention system have an average IQ of 85, as compared to the national average of 100, and about 60% “in detention meet the criteria for at least one mental disorder” (Butler 2011, 111).
Research by Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., director of Systems Research at the National Center of Juvenile Justice, shows that “ 68% of committed males were diagnosed with a mental health disorder, and research indicates that the percentage is greater for females in commitment facilities, 50% of committed males had a substance abuse diagnosis” (Katner 2006, 509). If a youth has a mental illness “then it is our responsibility to address those needs. A state has no right to refuse adjudicated juveniles. It is the juvenile justice system’s legal and ethical responsibility to admit them, and make provisions for their safe and secure care and treatment” (Smith 2012). The American Public Health Association found in their Cox proportional hazard study “that better mental health services reduced the risk of initial and subsequent juvenile justice involvement by 31%” (Foster, Qaseem, and Connor, 2004) and had stronger results with more serious offenders. Their findings said that “improved mental health services reduced the risk of juvenile justice involvement” (Foster, Qaseem, and Connor, 2004).
“We must remember that the juvenile justice system is meant to reduce recidivism, help the individual with their struggles, and integrate them back into the community. “When a juvenile offender is reintegrated into the community after a year being counseled, treated, and taught, the community is safer than it would be if that same delinquent youth were incarcerated for five years and released with no preparation to respect himself and society and to avoid repeating the same behavior. In Missouri, for example, only 8 percent of juvenile delinquents return to the justice system within three years; the national average is over 50 percent” (House 2010). “Decreasing recidivism has both immediate and long-term benefits. It has been estimated that juveniles who become adult offenders cost society between $1.5 and $1.8 million each” (Macomber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mambrino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 224). Therefore, successful education is one of the most important tools that a juvenile can have while locked up. According to the Journal of Correctional Education, quality education and successful employment “is viewed, unequivocally, as the most powerful tool in recidivism reduction, rehabilitation of juvenile delinquent […]into a socially productive, healthy, and happy adult” (Macomber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mambrino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 225). However, the article does note that the level of education that is delivered to juveniles while incarcerated is nationally recognized as being far from as effective as it should be.
Society wants our youths to succeed, be successful, and be normal members of society. That is why many advocates believe in keeping them out of the criminal justice system because they want to help bring these individuals back into society. Advocates for this system believe that juvenile justice systems are the best because once a juvenile is locked up in an adult correctional system, that individual “will have a criminal record that follows them for life, which would not be the case if they had been tried in family court” (McNeil 2008). Once a child is labeled as a criminal in society (labeling theory,) not only will it be hard for him to apply for a job with his adult criminal record, he will also carry the label of “criminal” over his head while back in society.
In this section we will be looking at why it is a good idea to abolish the juvenile justice system. Barry Feld is one of the major advocates for abolishing the juvenile justice system. He believes the system should be thrown out because juveniles are frequently not afforded their constitutional rights in juvenile court.
Barry Feld, a law professor from the U of M and an expert on the juvenile justice system, says the juvenile justice system needs to be abolished. He claims that “within the past three decades, judicial decisions, legislative amendments, and administrative changes have transformed the juvenile court from a nominally rehabilitative social welfare agency into a scaled-down, second-class criminal court for young people. These reforms have converted the historical ideal of the juvenile court as a social welfare institution into a penal system that provides young offenders with neither therapy nor justice” (Feld 1997, 68). In light of these failures, Feld is proposing that the juvenile court be integrated into the traditional criminal court system.
Feld talks about how the juvenile justice system lacks constitutional rights for youth offenders. Several important Supreme Court decisions help change and shape the “criminalization” of the juvenile court. In the case of In Re Winship,“the court required states to prove juvenile delinquency by criminal law’s standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt” (Feld 1997, 73). In the U.S. Supreme court case of In Re Gault, the court said that juveniles accused of crimes must be afforded many of the same rights that adults get. These rights would be the 5th amendment of right against self-incrimination, the 6th amendment right to confront witnesses, the right to timely notification of the charges and the right to be represented by an attorney. Even though the Supreme Court ruled this way, Feld says that “lawyers seldom appeared in juvenile courts” and when the juvenile was on trial the “judges did not advise juveniles of their rights” and did not appoint counsel (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 330). Feld cites two associations, the American Bar Association and American Children at risk, that reported that many youths in the juvenile justice system were not represented by counsel and of the lawyers who represented juvenile “lacked adequate training and failed to provide competent representation” (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 330). If this would happen in the criminal justice system, the case would risk dismissal or being overturned on appeal. Even if a juvenile does have a defense lawyer, many attorneys seldom if ever appeal the decision of the juvenile court judge.
Judges are continuing to allow juvenile rights continue to be trampled upon by allowing juveniles to waive their right to an attorney without allowing them to consult with one of their parents or an attorney. Feld and Schaefer say that “in most states, judges gauge juveniles’ waivers of rights by assessing whether they were “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” under the “totality of the circumstances” test. They rejected special procedures for youths and endorsed the adult standard to evaluate juveniles’ waivers of Miranda rights.” When a juvenile is arrested or brought into custody, he should not be allowed to talk to anyone unless his parent or lawyer is present. Feld wants both the criminal and juvenile system to be combined into one in hopes to reduce many constitutional violations, such as a juvenile waving his right to Miranda warnings. He says that many juveniles do not understand a Miranda warning or counsel advisory well enough to make a valid waiver” (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 331). This is a major risk for first time offenders because they may not know what they are agreeing to. Juveniles who have gone through the system before may start to get a grasp on the concept of Miranda about as well as adults but “substantial minorities of both groups failed to grasp at least some elements of the warning” (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 331).
To help reduce these constitutional violations, Feld believes that state courts should “adopt sentencing guidelines for juveniles, which now exist only in adult courts” (Furst 1991). Feld believes that many sentences are based on “where the juvenile lived than the crime” (Furst, 1991). In Feld’s study, “urban criminals face stiffer penalty,” he found that “urban juveniles receive harsher sentences for the same crimes than their rural and suburban counterparts” (Furst 1991). Felt said that urban courts detained youths that were charged with felonies around ¼ the time; “rural counties detained them one-tenth of the time and suburban counties one-thirteenth” (Furst 1991). Feld says that “no reasons exist to believe that rural youths are more competent than urban juveniles to waive legal rights, but rural judges appoint attorneys far less often than do their more formal, urban counterparts” (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 332). Feld says that juveniles are very immature and lack a lot of experience. They require the assistance of counsel to understand legal proceedings, to prepare and present a defense, to negotiate guilty pleas, and to ensure fair adjudications (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 350). How is it fair that adults can have lawyers present at their trial and not juveniles? He says that increased efforts to have lawyers present at juveniles trials have remained the same. Feld says that with his data from 1994 and 1999 have predicted the outcome for youths to receive attorneys present at trial. The data is quite surprising that “youths convicted of felony and status offenses show a decrease in odds of representation, whereas youths convicted of misdemeanor offenses show an increase in the odds of having an attorney” (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 349).
One of the most important rights we have in our judicial system is the right to a jury trial. However, Feld argues is that while the right to a jury trial “is a crucial procedural safeguard when states punish offenders, the vast majority of jurisdictions uncritically follow McKeivers lead and deny juveniles access to juries “ (Feld 1997, 87). When judges and juries apply Winship, the reasonable doubt standard, differently, it allows them to convict youths more easily in juvenile court than in adult criminal court with the same evidence.
Feld say that the constitution as well as state juvenile statutes allow delinquents to have formal trials with attorneys present. But in reality the actual quality of representation that the juvenile receives is far from optimum. One of his reasons for abolishing the juvenile justice system is because “the criminalization of juvenile courts, most states provide neither special procedures to protect youths from their own immaturity nor the full panoply of adult procedural safeguards. Instead, states treat juveniles just like adult criminal defendants when treating them equally places youth at a practical disadvantage” (Feld 1997, 87).
Feld argues that some scholars believe that rehabilitative juvenile court or a juvenile version of a criminal court “simply will not work as their supporters intend” (Crawford 2001). Because of this, Felt proposes that an integrated criminal court would be a better solution. He believes this model is the best because “society recognizes youths as being less mature and more susceptible to peer influence” (Crawford 2001) so the court could offer what he calls “youth discounts” for sentencing. This would take into consideration the youth’s age and apply it towards his crime. In his model he is not talking about crime reduction, “remove what he considers to be the drama of waivers to adult courts” (Crawford 2001). Feld claims it will remove double talk and hypocrisy because justice officials claim rehabilitation as their goal when the reality of their actions is coercion and punishment” (Crawford 2001). As long as the youth discount is integrated into the criminal court system, it can provide youth offenders with better legal protection, ensure they are granted the same constitutional rights that adults get, and most importantly, that juveniles would receive humane consequences from judges.
Feld agrees that youths do deserve shorter sentences compared to adults when being tried for “comparable crimes.” However, there does not need to be separate courts for this. Feld says that the juvenile court system will not survive because it represents a “temporary way-station on the road to substantive and procedural convergence with the criminal court” (Feld 1997, 132). For both of these court systems to work, Feld says there must be an “integrated criminal justice that formally recognizes adolescent as a development continuum may effectively address many of the problems created by our binary conceptions of youth and social control” (Feld 1997, 132).
Advocates for the juvenile justice system believe that juveniles should have their own court system. In order for the juveniles to be properly protected, educated and rehabilitated, there cannot be two systems. Many juveniles are not sufficiently mentally developed to stand trial in the adult court system. Recall that The American Public Health Association said that “better mental health services reduced the risk of initial and subsequent juvenile justice involvement by 31%” (Foster, Qaseem, and Connor, 2004). Once the juvenile entered the detention center and was given appropriate care and treatment, the risk of juvenile justice involvement in the future was reduced.
Many advocates argue that we must keep the juvenile justice system because “many studies … have found that significantly harsher punishments are meted out to juveniles in adult court when compared with juveniles in juvenile court, particularly for serious or violent offenses” (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 727). The study said that of the juveniles tried in adult court, about 80% received harsher punishments compared to their youth counterparts. In order for us to have fair trial systems we cannot try youth with the same standards of adult.
Advocates also believe that a juvenile should not be locked up in any adult facility because it would set the child up for more harm from stronger and more powerful adults. Research has shown that “experiences with adult jails and prisons show that those facilities may instill fear but are otherwise emotionally—and often physically—dangerous for youth” (Butler 2011, 114). I do not see any advantage to put a juvenile in the same cell or facility of another adult. The juvenile justice system is meant to rehabilitate the offender, not make him worse. We want the child to come out better than when he went in. In the adult court the minor would leave with a criminal record which could negatively affect his chances at getting a job once released. In juvenile court their record is usually protected.
I do agree with what Feld says about having a juvenile be granted his constitutional right to an attorney, jury trial and correct understanding to Miranda warnings. He makes a big case about how juveniles are rarely granted these rights. I strongly agree with Feld’s statement regarding this. Many of these youth are waving their right to an attorney without the knowledge of what the consequences might be. Because some judges are allowing this to happen in the juvenile court, Feld make a convincing argument for these youth to be tried in an adult court. This may prevent any further constitutional violations. If an adult was treated this way, the case would have a high probability of being thrown out. If a juvenile is not granted these rights, there is no way he can expect a fair trial. Feld is correct that courts need to follow In Re Winship and In Re Gault. These are the rights granted to the juvenile, for a judge not to follow them would be unprofessional and most of all unconstitutional.
Feld says that the juvenile court system will not survive because it represents a “temporary way-station on the road to substantive and procedural convergence with the criminal court” (Feld 1997, 132). I do not agree with this at all. In the juvenile justice system is designed help rehabilitate the offender, if the system is to work correctly; it will not be a temporary way-station. I do recognize that there are some fall backs to the system, but it needs to be run correctly.
The idea of “youth discounts,” if implemented correctly could work. However judges might over abuse their power towards the juvenile. These youth discounts would be totally up to the discretion of the judge. This could pose a problematic issue for the youth if the judge does not follow the guidelines of “youth discounts.” If judges cannot follow constitutional guidelines of Winship and Gaulti do not believe they would be able to follow a rule of youth discounts. Feld has a good idea behind his youth discounts, however I do not believe judges would follow these rules.
His last argument is that youths do deserve shorter sentences compared to adults when being tried for “comparable crimes.” If the juvenile system is abolished this concept would have to be enforce. I still see it being problematic for the child to serve time in an adult facility. We want to rehabilitate the child, not solely focus on punishing him or her. There is no telling how this system would be implemented. A judge could use this power to unfairly sentence certain youth to longer sentences the he deems necessary. As I have stated earlier, juveniles have different maturity and educational levels compared to adults. That is why many of these youths still need to be tried in a system where a judge is specialized in juvenile crimes.
Author Position
Now that we have had a chance to examine the arguments for and against abolishing the juvenile system, our issue is which side should we take and why? It is difficult to pick one side, and therefore I propose a hybrid version. Using strengths from both sides, I believe we can come to a conclusion that will be most beneficial for the juvenile, and our court system, and one that will meet constitutional standards. In order to accomplish all of this we will be looking at concepts, resources, and management. Applying all three of these criteria we will be able to see why the combination of them will result in the best outcome. We will be ending the juvenile system as it currently exists, but instead of getting rid of it all together, there will be some changes to the “adult system” to help incorporate these new guidelines.
As I have stated multiple times above, our concept of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate the offender and get the child ready to be brought back into society again. If the juvenile justice is to work correctly it would give the juvenile the necessary skills to be brought back into society. Society accepts this concept because the juvenile is still young, and society is willing to give that individual another chance. Society believes this because the juvenile is put under the ‘obligation’ to grow himself/herself to be fitted to the perceived values of the society. If this is done successfully, the concept of rehabilitation has worked successfully
Currently the juvenile justice system needs to be combined with parts of the adult system to work effectively. Mainly, the concept of having a fair trial is something all adults get in “adult court.” The juvenile justice system offers the minor educational and mental help through trained and effective services; something that the adult court rarely offers. It has also been stated that the juvenile dentation centers are better at offering rehabilitate skills through classes such as anger management which is essential to any delinquent wanting to enter society again. If the juvenile was just thrown into an adult correction facility, there is a slim chance that he would have access to the proper education that he would need. It is unlikely that the adult system has classes targeted for their needs. As I have stated earlier from the research, juveniles are far less mental and educationally developed compared to adults, that is why a system to house juveniles is still the best system. The adult system houses individuals from 18 on up. If the delinquent is rehabilitated in a facility with individuals his own age, this might provide a better learning environment. The adult system is more focused on punishing the individual for their crimes and second, to possibly rehabilitated the adult offender. In a juvenile dentation center, their main goal is to rehabilitate the offender, not solely punish them for their crimes. Therefore, the juvenile justice system must take into account the opportunity to grow as a good person without any kind of stigma attached. Part of their rehabilitative process might involve apologizing to the victim. This would result in no father threat to the victim, and help the offender to know the impact of his crime. The last concept is if the juvenile is to be properly rehabilitated he needs to be in a safe environment, one that is targeted for his age group and level of education. While in the detention center, he or she is given the chance to learn and be properly educated, a skill that he or she might not have received while in the “outside world.”
Barry Feld makes a convincing argument for abolishing the juvenile justice system with his argument that it does not afford the juvenile his constitutional rights. He believes that in order to fix this issue, the juvenile justice system need to be abolished and merged with the adult system. We are using Feld’s idea to merge the system but not abolish the resources and many benefits that come with the juvenile justice system. We will be using not one system but a hybrid of both. We must think of it as a system that only exists on paper not in different court systems.
To award trial by jury, Miranda warnings, and the right to counsel only to adults does not represent a fair and balanced justice system. Juveniles must have the same rights that adults are entitled to. If an adult was arrested, questioned by police, brought to court without legal representation and informed the judge of all these violations, the case and evidence would be thrown out. That is why when creating this hybrid system we are using Feld’s resource of the adult court to create a new justice system for juveniles to ensure they are awarded all the rights adults are.
First and foremost, juveniles must be accorded their constitutional rights. Juveniles are by definition young, inexperienced, and not as mentally and emotionally developed as adults. Special protections must be given to them to insure that they are granted their rights. Judges are continuing to allow juveniles to waive their right to Miranda when many are not aware of what they are without a parent or legal advisor. Juveniles who have gone through the system before may start to get a grasp on the concept of Miranda about as well as adults but “substantial minorities of both groups failed to grasp at least some elements of the warning” (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 331). Even if a lawyer was appointed, they (the lawyer) “seldom appeared in juvenile courts” and when the juvenile was on trial the “judges did not advise juveniles of their rights” and did not appoint counsel (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 330). Feld makes a major point of In Re Winship and In Re Gault (discussed above) to prove that even though these are laws exists, many courts overlook or ignore them, ultimately denying juveniles their rights to a fair trial. Constitutional rights cannot be overlooked, which is why I believe Feld’s argument of abolishing the juvenile justice system as it stands has merit, and the advantages of the adult system must be incorporated, without the negative consequences to juveniles. I propose that no juvenile be allowed to waive his Miranda rights without first consulting with a court appointed attorney. I further propose that no juvenile be allowed to waive his right to attorney, as can be done in adult court. Every juvenile should be represented by an attorney throughout the case.
I propose that the juvenile have the right to a trial by jury in all felony offenses. If the offense is a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, the juvenile would still be tried before the juvenile court judge. In both misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor and felony level offenses, however, the dispositional alternatives would be within the traditional juvenile court system. There would be no adult sentencing in any misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor offense, and no adult sentencing for felony level offenses without the juvenile being certified to stand trial as an adult.
Without good dispositional alternatives, we will not be able to make our hybrid juvenile system work. I am using this hybrid system to represent all non-serious crimes. One of the most important systems that needs to be retained is the educational system. As discussed earlier, “successful education is one of the most important tools that a juvenile can have while locked up.” If this is eliminated any hope of rehabilitating the juvenile goes out the window. One of the main goals of the juvenile justice system if to reduce the recidivism rate and to rehabilitate the individual with the skills necessary to return them to society. This will require enhanced special education opportunities. Many of the juveniles who are incarcerated have an average IQ of 85, as compared to national average of 100. So, even if they did attend public school, one study put their “literacy skills […] at least one standard deviation or two years behind” (Macomber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mambrino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 225) their school mates in the same grade. To make sure this educational program will work, part of what I am proposing is that the court must require these individuals to participate. Math and reading are generally key important educational programs, but the detention facility also needs to offer other programs such as anger management, developing social skill, and educational classes on a variety of areas that the juvenile might lack. If the juvenile does not agree to these terms and conditions, they will be tried in adult court and sentenced to the adult correctional facility.
It is not just education that many of these juveniles lack. Some 68% of committed males were diagnosed with some kind of mental health disorder, along with 50% of committed males having a substance abuse diagnosis. If these juveniles were put into the adult program, these issues might not ever be recognized or if they were, risk a high chance of never being treated. We need to provide adequate psychological support services to those who need them. If a youth has a mental illness “then it is our responsibility to address those needs. A state has no right to refuse adjudicated juveniles. It is the juvenile justice system’s legal and ethical responsibility to admit them, and make provisions for their safe and secure care and treatment” (Smith 2012). If these mental issues are treated right now versus in the future, it very well might drastically reduce the recidivism rate. It has been estimated that juveniles who become adult offenders cost society between $1.5 and $1.8 million each” (Macomber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mambrino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 224). This will ultimately be a substantial saving to the taxpayers, free up the jail for serious offenders, and get juveniles the help that many of them desperately need.
One of the last resources I am taking from the juvenile justice system to create our new “hybrid” system is the idea that the juvenile keeps his record sealed. We don’t want the juvenile to reenter society with a labeling affect over his head having him believe he is still a criminal. If his juvenile record is sealed, and the juvenile can apply for a job without putting his conviction down on his employment application, this will increase the odds of gaining employment and becoming rehabilitated. The job training and educational classes he can receive while incarcerated will enhance his opportunities for employment, and these should not be rendered ineffective by identifying himself as a criminal.
Putting this whole system together can be done, provided we get proper management of judges, police officers, and other individuals of the correctional system to work on the same level. To grant juveniles their constitutional rights is as simple as making sure the judges are doing their job. At present, many judges are just not allowing juveniles to have these rights. Implementing these new rules will require sanctions for failure to afford these rights. Many of these judges are already accustomed to the old rules or their rules of running their court room. Once this becomes a law, a judge must follow it like any other law, or face sanctions. Under our new system juveniles, will have the same rights as adults. It is unjustified for juveniles to lose rights simply because of their age.
The area that gets difficult to manage is the placement of a successful educational system. As we have talked about earlier, research shows that the present educational resources are not effective. In order for this program to work we must put in place new management in order to and get professional teachers involved. The juvenile detention facility would need to offer incentives to teachers that are willing to help educated many of these troubled teens.
We want create this system in because the public and society will ultimately benefit by juveniles that are rehabilitated at an early age, when they are most susceptible to corrective behavior, and ultimately are successfully reintegrated into society, as opposed to an adult that might have committed the same type of crime, with their higher recidivism rates.
Even though the term juvenile justice system is gone, all of the adult rights and more are now granted to the juvenile. Constitutional rights need to be awarded to every single person regardless of their age. We want the juvenile to be rehabilitated back into society, not to be worse off and for society ultimately to be worse off, which is what certain aspects of the adult system tends to provide. The point of this research focuses mainly on helpful punishment or utilitarian theory, which is the best way to deal with these youths. I do agree with Feld that juveniles may need to be locked up at times, however not in an adult system, which is an environment only likely to worsen their behavior. Our new hybrid system, formerly known as the juvenile justice system, is meant to help the individual through incentives, education, mental health services, and other social services. Work cited
Butler, Frank. "Rush To Judgment: Prisoners' Views Of Juvenile Justice." Western Criminology Review 12.3 (2011): 106-119. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. Retrieved: from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=13868cf4-8d91-4e68-a2e8-fb430da9e108%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=10
Crawford, Charles. (2001). Bad kids: Race and the transformation of the juvenile court. Contemporary Sociology, 30(4), 403-404. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/233602333?accountid=6766; http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?genre=article&issn=00943061&volume=30&issue=4&date=2001-07-01&spage=403&title=Contemporary+Sociology&atitle=Bad+Kids%3A+Race+and+the+Transformation+of+the+Juvenile+Court&au=Crawford%2C+Charles&isbn=&jtitle=Contemporary+Sociology&btitle=
Donna, M., Skiba, T., Blackmon, J., Esposito, E., Hart, L., Mambrino, E., & ... Grigorenko, E. L. (2010). Education in Juvenile Detention Facilities in the State of Connecticut: A Glance at the System. Journal Of Correctional Education, 61(3), 223-261. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=8&sid=54656b58-2329-4d91-b139-dd5546c1500d%40sessionmgr4
Feld ,Barry. (1997). Abolish the Juvenile Court: Youthfulness, Criminal Responsibility, and Sentencing Policy. (Vol. 88, No 1. pp. 68-136). Northwestern University Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.ndsu.edu/stable/pdfplus/1144075.pdf?acceptTC=true
Feld, Barry C., and Shelly Schaefer. "The Right To Counsel In Juvenile Court." Criminology & Public Policy 9.2 (2010): 327-356. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 11 Oct. 2012.
Foster, E. M., Qaseem, A., & Connor, T. (2004). Can better mental health services reduce the risk of juvenile justice system involvement? American Journal of Public Health, 94(5), 859-65. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215097258?accountid=6766; http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?genre=article&issn=00900036&volume=94&issue=5&date=2004-05-01&spage=859&title=American+Journal+of+Public+Health&atitle=Can+Better+Mental+Health+Services+Reduce+the+Risk+of+Juvenile+Justice+System+Involvement%3F&au=Foster%2C+E+Michael%3BQaseem%2C+Amir%3BConnor%2C+Tim&isbn=&jtitle=American+Journal+of+Public+Health&btitle=
Furst, R., & Writer, S. (1991, Jul 21). Juvenile `justice by geography' under fire // study: Urban criminals face stiffer penalty. Star Tribune. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/418235640?accountid=6766; http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?genre=article&issn=08952825&volume=&issue=&date=1991-07-21&spage=01.B&title=Star+Tribune&atitle=Juvenile+%60justice+by+geography%27+under+fire+%2F%2F+Study%3A+Urban+criminals+face+stiffer+penalty%3A+%5BMETRO+Edition%5D&au=Furst%2C+Randy%3BStaff+Writer&isbn=&jtitle=Star+Tribune&btitle=
House, M. (2010, Jun 09). Questioning how well juvenile justice system works. The Sun. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/366294685?accountid=6766; http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?genre=article&issn=&volume=&issue=&date=2010-06-09&spage=&title=The+Sun&atitle=Questioning+how+well+juvenile+justice+system+works&au=House%2C+Matthew&isbn=&jtitle=The+Sun&btitle=
Katner, David R. "The Mental Health Paradigm And The Macarthur Study: Emerging Issues Challenging The Competence Of Juveniles In Delinquency Systems." American Journal Of Law & Medicine 32.4 (2006): 503-583. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 10 Oct. 2012.Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=07af35e8-c1a5-474c-96fc-9b2db7387c01%40sessionmgr4&vid=1&hid=10
Kurlychek, Megan C., and Brian D. Johnson. "Juvenility And Punishment: Sentencing Juveniles In Adult Criminal Court." Criminology 48.3 (2010): 725-758. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b8793422-3630-4e9a-a6f3-a487fcd1f4c7%40sessionmgr15&vid=1&hid=10
McNeil, Harold. (2008, Feb 26). State juvenile justice aide stresses keeping youths out of adult system. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/462168936?accountid=6766; http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?genre=article&issn=&volume=&issue=&date=2008-02 26&spage=&title=McClatchy+-+Tribune+Business+News&atitle=State+juvenile+justice+aide+stresses+keeping+youths+out+of+adult+system&au=McNeil%2C+Harold&isbn=&jtitle=McClatchy+-+Tribune+Business+News&btitle=
Ritter, M. J. (2010). Just (Juvenile Justice) Jargon: An Argument for Terminological Uniformity Between the Juvenile and Criminal Justice Systems. American Journal Of Criminal Law, 37(2), 221-240. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=8&sid=54656b58-2329-4d91-b139-dd5546c1500d%40sessionmgr4
Riopell, M. (2008, Jun 27). Report: Keeping offenders in juvenile system pays off in end ing offendersin. Pantagraph. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/252668631?accountid=6766; http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?genre=article&issn=&volume=&issue=&date=2008-06-27&spage=A.5&title=Pantagraph&atitle=Report%3A+Keeping+offenders+in+juvenile+system+pays+off+in+end+ing+offendersin&au=Riopell%2C+Mike&isbn=&jtitle=Pantagraph&btitle=
Smith, L. D. (2012). A Juvenile Correctional Mental Health Continuum of Care -- Some Key Components. Correctional Mental Health Report, 14(1), 12-16. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a3fa6bc4-c8d7-4df0-95e5-250f04fae0d0%40sessionmgr4&vid=1&hid=10
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 run 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.
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, “no way should we get rid of the juvenile justice system.” The “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 “separate” from the adults.
If a juvenile commits an “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 “many studies also have found that significantly harsher punishments are meted out to juveniles in adult court when compared with juveniles in juvenile court, particularly 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 “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: “On average, their sentences were 80 percent more severe than for their young adult counterparts” (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729).
Juveniles should not be allowed to be tried in adult court because studies have shown that many “juveniles function at levels similar to disabled adults who lack competence; not because of diagnosable mental health problems, but because of developmental immaturity” (Katner 2006, 507). The theory that sentencing a youth to an adult prison will reduce recidivism and hope that the experience will “scare him straight,” is invalid. Research shows that “experiences with adult jails and prisons show that those facilities may instill fear but are otherwise emotionally—and often physically—dangerous for youth” (Butler 2011, 114). Finally, Frank Zimring argued that “young law violators are less culpable, and thus deserve less punishment—no matter what kind of court might try and sentence them” (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729). Kurlycheck and Johnson also confirm what Katner is saying by explaining that “adolescents are at psychosocial disadvantages in terms of responsibility, peer influence, temperance, and perspective; they are less able to foresee future consequences of their actions” (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 729). Youths in the detention system have an average IQ of 85, as compared to the national average of 100, and about 60% “in detention meet the criteria for at least one mental disorder” (Butler 2011, 111).
Research by Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., director of Systems Research at the National Center of Juvenile Justice, shows that “ 68% of committed males were diagnosed with a mental health disorder, and research indicates that the percentage is greater for females in commitment facilities, 50% of committed males had a substance abuse diagnosis” (Katner 2006, 509). If a youth has a mental illness “then it is our responsibility to address those needs. A state has no right to refuse adjudicated juveniles. It is the juvenile justice system’s legal and ethical responsibility to admit them, and make provisions for their safe and secure care and treatment” (Smith 2012). The American Public Health Association found in their Cox proportional hazard study “that better mental health services reduced the risk of initial and subsequent juvenile justice involvement by 31%” (Foster, Qaseem, and Connor, 2004) and had stronger results with more serious offenders. Their findings said that “improved mental health services reduced the risk of juvenile justice involvement” (Foster, Qaseem, and Connor, 2004).
“We must remember that the juvenile justice system is meant to reduce recidivism, help the individual with their struggles, and integrate them back into the community. “When a juvenile offender is reintegrated into the community after a year being counseled, treated, and taught, the community is safer than it would be if that same delinquent youth were incarcerated for five years and released with no preparation to respect himself and society and to avoid repeating the same behavior. In Missouri, for example, only 8 percent of juvenile delinquents return to the justice system within three years; the national average is over 50 percent” (House 2010). “Decreasing recidivism has both immediate and long-term benefits. It has been estimated that juveniles who become adult offenders cost society between $1.5 and $1.8 million each” (Macomber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mambrino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 224). Therefore, successful education is one of the most important tools that a juvenile can have while locked up. According to the Journal of Correctional Education, quality education and successful employment “is viewed, unequivocally, as the most powerful tool in recidivism reduction, rehabilitation of juvenile delinquent […]into a socially productive, healthy, and happy adult” (Macomber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mambrino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 225). However, the article does note that the level of education that is delivered to juveniles while incarcerated is nationally recognized as being far from as effective as it should be.
Society wants our youths to succeed, be successful, and be normal members of society. That is why many advocates believe in keeping them out of the criminal justice system because they want to help bring these individuals back into society. Advocates for this system believe that juvenile justice systems are the best because once a juvenile is locked up in an adult correctional system, that individual “will have a criminal record that follows them for life, which would not be the case if they had been tried in family court” (McNeil 2008). Once a child is labeled as a criminal in society (labeling theory,) not only will it be hard for him to apply for a job with his adult criminal record, he will also carry the label of “criminal” over his head while back in society.
In this section we will be looking at why it is a good idea to abolish the juvenile justice system. Barry Feld is one of the major advocates for abolishing the juvenile justice system. He believes the system should be thrown out because juveniles are frequently not afforded their constitutional rights in juvenile court.
Barry Feld, a law professor from the U of M and an expert on the juvenile justice system, says the juvenile justice system needs to be abolished. He claims that “within the past three decades, judicial decisions, legislative amendments, and administrative changes have transformed the juvenile court from a nominally rehabilitative social welfare agency into a scaled-down, second-class criminal court for young people. These reforms have converted the historical ideal of the juvenile court as a social welfare institution into a penal system that provides young offenders with neither therapy nor justice” (Feld 1997, 68). In light of these failures, Feld is proposing that the juvenile court be integrated into the traditional criminal court system.
Feld talks about how the juvenile justice system lacks constitutional rights for youth offenders. Several important Supreme Court decisions help change and shape the “criminalization” of the juvenile court. In the case of In Re Winship,“the court required states to prove juvenile delinquency by criminal law’s standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt” (Feld 1997, 73). In the U.S. Supreme court case of In Re Gault, the court said that juveniles accused of crimes must be afforded many of the same rights that adults get. These rights would be the 5th amendment of right against self-incrimination, the 6th amendment right to confront witnesses, the right to timely notification of the charges and the right to be represented by an attorney. Even though the Supreme Court ruled this way, Feld says that “lawyers seldom appeared in juvenile courts” and when the juvenile was on trial the “judges did not advise juveniles of their rights” and did not appoint counsel (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 330). Feld cites two associations, the American Bar Association and American Children at risk, that reported that many youths in the juvenile justice system were not represented by counsel and of the lawyers who represented juvenile “lacked adequate training and failed to provide competent representation” (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 330). If this would happen in the criminal justice system, the case would risk dismissal or being overturned on appeal. Even if a juvenile does have a defense lawyer, many attorneys seldom if ever appeal the decision of the juvenile court judge.
Judges are continuing to allow juvenile rights continue to be trampled upon by allowing juveniles to waive their right to an attorney without allowing them to consult with one of their parents or an attorney. Feld and Schaefer say that “in most states, judges gauge juveniles’ waivers of rights by assessing whether they were “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” under the “totality of the circumstances” test. They rejected special procedures for youths and endorsed the adult standard to evaluate juveniles’ waivers of Miranda rights.” When a juvenile is arrested or brought into custody, he should not be allowed to talk to anyone unless his parent or lawyer is present. Feld wants both the criminal and juvenile system to be combined into one in hopes to reduce many constitutional violations, such as a juvenile waving his right to Miranda warnings. He says that many juveniles do not understand a Miranda warning or counsel advisory well enough to make a valid waiver” (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 331). This is a major risk for first time offenders because they may not know what they are agreeing to. Juveniles who have gone through the system before may start to get a grasp on the concept of Miranda about as well as adults but “substantial minorities of both groups failed to grasp at least some elements of the warning” (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 331).
To help reduce these constitutional violations, Feld believes that state courts should “adopt sentencing guidelines for juveniles, which now exist only in adult courts” (Furst 1991). Feld believes that many sentences are based on “where the juvenile lived than the crime” (Furst, 1991). In Feld’s study, “urban criminals face stiffer penalty,” he found that “urban juveniles receive harsher sentences for the same crimes than their rural and suburban counterparts” (Furst 1991). Felt said that urban courts detained youths that were charged with felonies around ¼ the time; “rural counties detained them one-tenth of the time and suburban counties one-thirteenth” (Furst 1991). Feld says that “no reasons exist to believe that rural youths are more competent than urban juveniles to waive legal rights, but rural judges appoint attorneys far less often than do their more formal, urban counterparts” (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 332). Feld says that juveniles are very immature and lack a lot of experience. They require the assistance of counsel to understand legal proceedings, to prepare and present a defense, to negotiate guilty pleas, and to ensure fair adjudications (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 350). How is it fair that adults can have lawyers present at their trial and not juveniles? He says that increased efforts to have lawyers present at juveniles trials have remained the same. Feld says that with his data from 1994 and 1999 have predicted the outcome for youths to receive attorneys present at trial. The data is quite surprising that “youths convicted of felony and status offenses show a decrease in odds of representation, whereas youths convicted of misdemeanor offenses show an increase in the odds of having an attorney” (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 349).
One of the most important rights we have in our judicial system is the right to a jury trial. However, Feld argues is that while the right to a jury trial “is a crucial procedural safeguard when states punish offenders, the vast majority of jurisdictions uncritically follow McKeivers lead and deny juveniles access to juries “ (Feld 1997, 87). When judges and juries apply Winship, the reasonable doubt standard, differently, it allows them to convict youths more easily in juvenile court than in adult criminal court with the same evidence.
Feld say that the constitution as well as state juvenile statutes allow delinquents to have formal trials with attorneys present. But in reality the actual quality of representation that the juvenile receives is far from optimum. One of his reasons for abolishing the juvenile justice system is because “the criminalization of juvenile courts, most states provide neither special procedures to protect youths from their own immaturity nor the full panoply of adult procedural safeguards. Instead, states treat juveniles just like adult criminal defendants when treating them equally places youth at a practical disadvantage” (Feld 1997, 87).
Feld argues that some scholars believe that rehabilitative juvenile court or a juvenile version of a criminal court “simply will not work as their supporters intend” (Crawford 2001). Because of this, Felt proposes that an integrated criminal court would be a better solution. He believes this model is the best because “society recognizes youths as being less mature and more susceptible to peer influence” (Crawford 2001) so the court could offer what he calls “youth discounts” for sentencing. This would take into consideration the youth’s age and apply it towards his crime. In his model he is not talking about crime reduction, “remove what he considers to be the drama of waivers to adult courts” (Crawford 2001). Feld claims it will remove double talk and hypocrisy because justice officials claim rehabilitation as their goal when the reality of their actions is coercion and punishment” (Crawford 2001). As long as the youth discount is integrated into the criminal court system, it can provide youth offenders with better legal protection, ensure they are granted the same constitutional rights that adults get, and most importantly, that juveniles would receive humane consequences from judges.
Feld agrees that youths do deserve shorter sentences compared to adults when being tried for “comparable crimes.” However, there does not need to be separate courts for this. Feld says that the juvenile court system will not survive because it represents a “temporary way-station on the road to substantive and procedural convergence with the criminal court” (Feld 1997, 132). For both of these court systems to work, Feld says there must be an “integrated criminal justice that formally recognizes adolescent as a development continuum may effectively address many of the problems created by our binary conceptions of youth and social control” (Feld 1997, 132).
Advocates for the juvenile justice system believe that juveniles should have their own court system. In order for the juveniles to be properly protected, educated and rehabilitated, there cannot be two systems. Many juveniles are not sufficiently mentally developed to stand trial in the adult court system. Recall that The American Public Health Association said that “better mental health services reduced the risk of initial and subsequent juvenile justice involvement by 31%” (Foster, Qaseem, and Connor, 2004). Once the juvenile entered the detention center and was given appropriate care and treatment, the risk of juvenile justice involvement in the future was reduced.
Many advocates argue that we must keep the juvenile justice system because “many studies … have found that significantly harsher punishments are meted out to juveniles in adult court when compared with juveniles in juvenile court, particularly for serious or violent offenses” (Kurlycheck and Johnson 2010, 727). The study said that of the juveniles tried in adult court, about 80% received harsher punishments compared to their youth counterparts. In order for us to have fair trial systems we cannot try youth with the same standards of adult.
Advocates also believe that a juvenile should not be locked up in any adult facility because it would set the child up for more harm from stronger and more powerful adults. Research has shown that “experiences with adult jails and prisons show that those facilities may instill fear but are otherwise emotionally—and often physically—dangerous for youth” (Butler 2011, 114). I do not see any advantage to put a juvenile in the same cell or facility of another adult. The juvenile justice system is meant to rehabilitate the offender, not make him worse. We want the child to come out better than when he went in. In the adult court the minor would leave with a criminal record which could negatively affect his chances at getting a job once released. In juvenile court their record is usually protected.
I do agree with what Feld says about having a juvenile be granted his constitutional right to an attorney, jury trial and correct understanding to Miranda warnings. He makes a big case about how juveniles are rarely granted these rights. I strongly agree with Feld’s statement regarding this. Many of these youth are waving their right to an attorney without the knowledge of what the consequences might be. Because some judges are allowing this to happen in the juvenile court, Feld make a convincing argument for these youth to be tried in an adult court. This may prevent any further constitutional violations. If an adult was treated this way, the case would have a high probability of being thrown out. If a juvenile is not granted these rights, there is no way he can expect a fair trial. Feld is correct that courts need to follow In Re Winship and In Re Gault. These are the rights granted to the juvenile, for a judge not to follow them would be unprofessional and most of all unconstitutional.
Feld says that the juvenile court system will not survive because it represents a “temporary way-station on the road to substantive and procedural convergence with the criminal court” (Feld 1997, 132). I do not agree with this at all. In the juvenile justice system is designed help rehabilitate the offender, if the system is to work correctly; it will not be a temporary way-station. I do recognize that there are some fall backs to the system, but it needs to be run correctly.
The idea of “youth discounts,” if implemented correctly could work. However judges might over abuse their power towards the juvenile. These youth discounts would be totally up to the discretion of the judge. This could pose a problematic issue for the youth if the judge does not follow the guidelines of “youth discounts.” If judges cannot follow constitutional guidelines of Winship and Gaulti do not believe they would be able to follow a rule of youth discounts. Feld has a good idea behind his youth discounts, however I do not believe judges would follow these rules.
His last argument is that youths do deserve shorter sentences compared to adults when being tried for “comparable crimes.” If the juvenile system is abolished this concept would have to be enforce. I still see it being problematic for the child to serve time in an adult facility. We want to rehabilitate the child, not solely focus on punishing him or her. There is no telling how this system would be implemented. A judge could use this power to unfairly sentence certain youth to longer sentences the he deems necessary. As I have stated earlier, juveniles have different maturity and educational levels compared to adults. That is why many of these youths still need to be tried in a system where a judge is specialized in juvenile crimes.
Author Position
Now that we have had a chance to examine the arguments for and against abolishing the juvenile system, our issue is which side should we take and why? It is difficult to pick one side, and therefore I propose a hybrid version. Using strengths from both sides, I believe we can come to a conclusion that will be most beneficial for the juvenile, and our court system, and one that will meet constitutional standards. In order to accomplish all of this we will be looking at concepts, resources, and management. Applying all three of these criteria we will be able to see why the combination of them will result in the best outcome. We will be ending the juvenile system as it currently exists, but instead of getting rid of it all together, there will be some changes to the “adult system” to help incorporate these new guidelines.
As I have stated multiple times above, our concept of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate the offender and get the child ready to be brought back into society again. If the juvenile justice is to work correctly it would give the juvenile the necessary skills to be brought back into society. Society accepts this concept because the juvenile is still young, and society is willing to give that individual another chance. Society believes this because the juvenile is put under the ‘obligation’ to grow himself/herself to be fitted to the perceived values of the society. If this is done successfully, the concept of rehabilitation has worked successfully
Currently the juvenile justice system needs to be combined with parts of the adult system to work effectively. Mainly, the concept of having a fair trial is something all adults get in “adult court.” The juvenile justice system offers the minor educational and mental help through trained and effective services; something that the adult court rarely offers. It has also been stated that the juvenile dentation centers are better at offering rehabilitate skills through classes such as anger management which is essential to any delinquent wanting to enter society again. If the juvenile was just thrown into an adult correction facility, there is a slim chance that he would have access to the proper education that he would need. It is unlikely that the adult system has classes targeted for their needs. As I have stated earlier from the research, juveniles are far less mental and educationally developed compared to adults, that is why a system to house juveniles is still the best system. The adult system houses individuals from 18 on up. If the delinquent is rehabilitated in a facility with individuals his own age, this might provide a better learning environment. The adult system is more focused on punishing the individual for their crimes and second, to possibly rehabilitated the adult offender. In a juvenile dentation center, their main goal is to rehabilitate the offender, not solely punish them for their crimes. Therefore, the juvenile justice system must take into account the opportunity to grow as a good person without any kind of stigma attached. Part of their rehabilitative process might involve apologizing to the victim. This would result in no father threat to the victim, and help the offender to know the impact of his crime. The last concept is if the juvenile is to be properly rehabilitated he needs to be in a safe environment, one that is targeted for his age group and level of education. While in the detention center, he or she is given the chance to learn and be properly educated, a skill that he or she might not have received while in the “outside world.”
Barry Feld makes a convincing argument for abolishing the juvenile justice system with his argument that it does not afford the juvenile his constitutional rights. He believes that in order to fix this issue, the juvenile justice system need to be abolished and merged with the adult system. We are using Feld’s idea to merge the system but not abolish the resources and many benefits that come with the juvenile justice system. We will be using not one system but a hybrid of both. We must think of it as a system that only exists on paper not in different court systems.
To award trial by jury, Miranda warnings, and the right to counsel only to adults does not represent a fair and balanced justice system. Juveniles must have the same rights that adults are entitled to. If an adult was arrested, questioned by police, brought to court without legal representation and informed the judge of all these violations, the case and evidence would be thrown out. That is why when creating this hybrid system we are using Feld’s resource of the adult court to create a new justice system for juveniles to ensure they are awarded all the rights adults are.
First and foremost, juveniles must be accorded their constitutional rights. Juveniles are by definition young, inexperienced, and not as mentally and emotionally developed as adults. Special protections must be given to them to insure that they are granted their rights. Judges are continuing to allow juveniles to waive their right to Miranda when many are not aware of what they are without a parent or legal advisor. Juveniles who have gone through the system before may start to get a grasp on the concept of Miranda about as well as adults but “substantial minorities of both groups failed to grasp at least some elements of the warning” (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 331). Even if a lawyer was appointed, they (the lawyer) “seldom appeared in juvenile courts” and when the juvenile was on trial the “judges did not advise juveniles of their rights” and did not appoint counsel (Feld and Schaefer 2010, 330). Feld makes a major point of In Re Winship and In Re Gault (discussed above) to prove that even though these are laws exists, many courts overlook or ignore them, ultimately denying juveniles their rights to a fair trial. Constitutional rights cannot be overlooked, which is why I believe Feld’s argument of abolishing the juvenile justice system as it stands has merit, and the advantages of the adult system must be incorporated, without the negative consequences to juveniles. I propose that no juvenile be allowed to waive his Miranda rights without first consulting with a court appointed attorney. I further propose that no juvenile be allowed to waive his right to attorney, as can be done in adult court. Every juvenile should be represented by an attorney throughout the case.
I propose that the juvenile have the right to a trial by jury in all felony offenses. If the offense is a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, the juvenile would still be tried before the juvenile court judge. In both misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor and felony level offenses, however, the dispositional alternatives would be within the traditional juvenile court system. There would be no adult sentencing in any misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor offense, and no adult sentencing for felony level offenses without the juvenile being certified to stand trial as an adult.
Without good dispositional alternatives, we will not be able to make our hybrid juvenile system work. I am using this hybrid system to represent all non-serious crimes. One of the most important systems that needs to be retained is the educational system. As discussed earlier, “successful education is one of the most important tools that a juvenile can have while locked up.” If this is eliminated any hope of rehabilitating the juvenile goes out the window. One of the main goals of the juvenile justice system if to reduce the recidivism rate and to rehabilitate the individual with the skills necessary to return them to society. This will require enhanced special education opportunities. Many of the juveniles who are incarcerated have an average IQ of 85, as compared to national average of 100. So, even if they did attend public school, one study put their “literacy skills […] at least one standard deviation or two years behind” (Macomber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mambrino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 225) their school mates in the same grade. To make sure this educational program will work, part of what I am proposing is that the court must require these individuals to participate. Math and reading are generally key important educational programs, but the detention facility also needs to offer other programs such as anger management, developing social skill, and educational classes on a variety of areas that the juvenile might lack. If the juvenile does not agree to these terms and conditions, they will be tried in adult court and sentenced to the adult correctional facility.
It is not just education that many of these juveniles lack. Some 68% of committed males were diagnosed with some kind of mental health disorder, along with 50% of committed males having a substance abuse diagnosis. If these juveniles were put into the adult program, these issues might not ever be recognized or if they were, risk a high chance of never being treated. We need to provide adequate psychological support services to those who need them. If a youth has a mental illness “then it is our responsibility to address those needs. A state has no right to refuse adjudicated juveniles. It is the juvenile justice system’s legal and ethical responsibility to admit them, and make provisions for their safe and secure care and treatment” (Smith 2012). If these mental issues are treated right now versus in the future, it very well might drastically reduce the recidivism rate. It has been estimated that juveniles who become adult offenders cost society between $1.5 and $1.8 million each” (Macomber, Skiba, Blackmon, Esposito, Hart, Mambrino, Richie, Grigorenko 2010, 224). This will ultimately be a substantial saving to the taxpayers, free up the jail for serious offenders, and get juveniles the help that many of them desperately need.
One of the last resources I am taking from the juvenile justice system to create our new “hybrid” system is the idea that the juvenile keeps his record sealed. We don’t want the juvenile to reenter society with a labeling affect over his head having him believe he is still a criminal. If his juvenile record is sealed, and the juvenile can apply for a job without putting his conviction down on his employment application, this will increase the odds of gaining employment and becoming rehabilitated. The job training and educational classes he can receive while incarcerated will enhance his opportunities for employment, and these should not be rendered ineffective by identifying himself as a criminal.
Putting this whole system together can be done, provided we get proper management of judges, police officers, and other individuals of the correctional system to work on the same level. To grant juveniles their constitutional rights is as simple as making sure the judges are doing their job. At present, many judges are just not allowing juveniles to have these rights. Implementing these new rules will require sanctions for failure to afford these rights. Many of these judges are already accustomed to the old rules or their rules of running their court room. Once this becomes a law, a judge must follow it like any other law, or face sanctions. Under our new system juveniles, will have the same rights as adults. It is unjustified for juveniles to lose rights simply because of their age.
The area that gets difficult to manage is the placement of a successful educational system. As we have talked about earlier, research shows that the present educational resources are not effective. In order for this program to work we must put in place new management in order to and get professional teachers involved. The juvenile detention facility would need to offer incentives to teachers that are willing to help educated many of these troubled teens.
We want create this system in because the public and society will ultimately benefit by juveniles that are rehabilitated at an early age, when they are most susceptible to corrective behavior, and ultimately are successfully reintegrated into society, as opposed to an adult that might have committed the same type of crime, with their higher recidivism rates.
Even though the term juvenile justice system is gone, all of the adult rights and more are now granted to the juvenile. Constitutional rights need to be awarded to every single person regardless of their age. We want the juvenile to be rehabilitated back into society, not to be worse off and for society ultimately to be worse off, which is what certain aspects of the adult system tends to provide. The point of this research focuses mainly on helpful punishment or utilitarian theory, which is the best way to deal with these youths. I do agree with Feld that juveniles may need to be locked up at times, however not in an adult system, which is an environment only likely to worsen their behavior. Our new hybrid system, formerly known as the juvenile justice system, is meant to help the individual through incentives, education, mental health services, and other social services. Work cited
Butler, Frank. "Rush To Judgment: Prisoners' Views Of Juvenile Justice." Western Criminology Review 12.3 (2011): 106-119. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. Retrieved: from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=13868cf4-8d91-4e68-a2e8-fb430da9e108%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=10
Crawford, Charles. (2001). Bad kids: Race and the transformation of the juvenile court. Contemporary Sociology, 30(4), 403-404. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/233602333?accountid=6766; http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?genre=article&issn=00943061&volume=30&issue=4&date=2001-07-01&spage=403&title=Contemporary+Sociology&atitle=Bad+Kids%3A+Race+and+the+Transformation+of+the+Juvenile+Court&au=Crawford%2C+Charles&isbn=&jtitle=Contemporary+Sociology&btitle=
Donna, M., Skiba, T., Blackmon, J., Esposito, E., Hart, L., Mambrino, E., & ... Grigorenko, E. L. (2010). Education in Juvenile Detention Facilities in the State of Connecticut: A Glance at the System. Journal Of Correctional Education, 61(3), 223-261. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=8&sid=54656b58-2329-4d91-b139-dd5546c1500d%40sessionmgr4
Feld ,Barry. (1997). Abolish the Juvenile Court: Youthfulness, Criminal Responsibility, and Sentencing Policy. (Vol. 88, No 1. pp. 68-136). Northwestern University Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.ndsu.edu/stable/pdfplus/1144075.pdf?acceptTC=true
Feld, Barry C., and Shelly Schaefer. "The Right To Counsel In Juvenile Court." Criminology & Public Policy 9.2 (2010): 327-356. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 11 Oct. 2012.
Foster, E. M., Qaseem, A., & Connor, T. (2004). Can better mental health services reduce the risk of juvenile justice system involvement? American Journal of Public Health, 94(5), 859-65. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215097258?accountid=6766; http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?genre=article&issn=00900036&volume=94&issue=5&date=2004-05-01&spage=859&title=American+Journal+of+Public+Health&atitle=Can+Better+Mental+Health+Services+Reduce+the+Risk+of+Juvenile+Justice+System+Involvement%3F&au=Foster%2C+E+Michael%3BQaseem%2C+Amir%3BConnor%2C+Tim&isbn=&jtitle=American+Journal+of+Public+Health&btitle=
Furst, R., & Writer, S. (1991, Jul 21). Juvenile `justice by geography' under fire // study: Urban criminals face stiffer penalty. Star Tribune. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/418235640?accountid=6766; http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?genre=article&issn=08952825&volume=&issue=&date=1991-07-21&spage=01.B&title=Star+Tribune&atitle=Juvenile+%60justice+by+geography%27+under+fire+%2F%2F+Study%3A+Urban+criminals+face+stiffer+penalty%3A+%5BMETRO+Edition%5D&au=Furst%2C+Randy%3BStaff+Writer&isbn=&jtitle=Star+Tribune&btitle=
House, M. (2010, Jun 09). Questioning how well juvenile justice system works. The Sun. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/366294685?accountid=6766; http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?genre=article&issn=&volume=&issue=&date=2010-06-09&spage=&title=The+Sun&atitle=Questioning+how+well+juvenile+justice+system+works&au=House%2C+Matthew&isbn=&jtitle=The+Sun&btitle=
Katner, David R. "The Mental Health Paradigm And The Macarthur Study: Emerging Issues Challenging The Competence Of Juveniles In Delinquency Systems." American Journal Of Law & Medicine 32.4 (2006): 503-583. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 10 Oct. 2012.Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=07af35e8-c1a5-474c-96fc-9b2db7387c01%40sessionmgr4&vid=1&hid=10
Kurlychek, Megan C., and Brian D. Johnson. "Juvenility And Punishment: Sentencing Juveniles In Adult Criminal Court." Criminology 48.3 (2010): 725-758. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b8793422-3630-4e9a-a6f3-a487fcd1f4c7%40sessionmgr15&vid=1&hid=10
McNeil, Harold. (2008, Feb 26). State juvenile justice aide stresses keeping youths out of adult system. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/462168936?accountid=6766; http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?genre=article&issn=&volume=&issue=&date=2008-02 26&spage=&title=McClatchy+-+Tribune+Business+News&atitle=State+juvenile+justice+aide+stresses+keeping+youths+out+of+adult+system&au=McNeil%2C+Harold&isbn=&jtitle=McClatchy+-+Tribune+Business+News&btitle=
Ritter, M. J. (2010). Just (Juvenile Justice) Jargon: An Argument for Terminological Uniformity Between the Juvenile and Criminal Justice Systems. American Journal Of Criminal Law, 37(2), 221-240. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=8&sid=54656b58-2329-4d91-b139-dd5546c1500d%40sessionmgr4
Riopell, M. (2008, Jun 27). Report: Keeping offenders in juvenile system pays off in end ing offendersin. Pantagraph. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/252668631?accountid=6766; http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?genre=article&issn=&volume=&issue=&date=2008-06-27&spage=A.5&title=Pantagraph&atitle=Report%3A+Keeping+offenders+in+juvenile+system+pays+off+in+end+ing+offendersin&au=Riopell%2C+Mike&isbn=&jtitle=Pantagraph&btitle=
Smith, L. D. (2012). A Juvenile Correctional Mental Health Continuum of Care -- Some Key Components. Correctional Mental Health Report, 14(1), 12-16. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a3fa6bc4-c8d7-4df0-95e5-250f04fae0d0%40sessionmgr4&vid=1&hid=10
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
By the nineteenth century, many child welfare advocates reformed the country’s view on children, and the states found it counter productive to convict children along with adults. States then recognized that minors are indeed young enough to be rehabilitated. Thus being said, the United States began discussing the idea of a separate justice system specifically for juvenile cases. In 1925 an official juvenile system has been established in the United States. “Juvenile courts do not exist to punish children for their transgressions against society…The aim of the court is to provide individualized justice for children…The delinquent is the child of, rather than the enemy of society and their interests coincide.” (Ogilvie at p.…
- 1946 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The United States government is based on a checks and balances type system. The three main parts of this system are the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. This judicial system’s job is to uphold the law of the land. Law can be defined as a set of rules or norms of conduct which mandate, proscribe or permit specified relationships among people and organizations, provide methods for ensuring the impartial treatment of such people, and provide punishments for those who do not follow the established rules of conduct (Wikipedia.org, 2005). This is a very wide and all encompassing definition of the law and the governing judicial system. Just like the United States government the judicial system is broken up into different checks, balances, and systems. Two of these main systems are the juvenile justices system and the adult justice system. The obvious difference between these two courts is that the juvenile system is designed to handle youth offenders and the adult system is designed to handle adult offenders. Both of these two systems despite their difference have the same end goal; to administer justice. In the pages to follow we will discuss the big picture of the juvenile justice system, go over a point by point comparison between the juvenile system and the adult system, touch on both the benefits and disadvantages to being tried as a minor in the juvenile court from the perspective of a minor, and review the societal implication of abolishing the juvenile court system.…
- 2342 Words
- 10 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Juveniles in the criminal justice system are a special population. Throughout history juveniles have been looked at as needing to be protected from the harsh realities that face adults daily. The juvenile justice system has primarily operated in a parens patriae capacity and protected the rights of those that were legally incapable of protecting themselves such as minor children and the mentally ill. From 1987-1993 the juvenile homicide rate doubled causing critics and conservatives to questions the approach of the juvenile justice community calling it ‘soft on crime’ Steiner &…
- 3319 Words
- 14 Pages
Best Essays -
Many people around the nation have different views on the subject of juvenile justice. Some believe that despite the children's age, they should still be tried as an adult if a serious crime is committed. On the other hand, some believe children should not be tried as adult even if they commit a rather serious crime. I firmly that these children should not be sentenced to life in prison despite the serious crime that they have committed and should have another shot at life when their brain is fully developed.…
- 517 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Every year, juvenile courts in the United States handle an estimated 1.7 million cases in which a youth was charged with a delinquency offense (“Youth in the Justice System,” 2012). Throughout most of history, youthful offenders were handled under the same laws and system as adults were. While deviance has always been around, societal intervention and participation in handling juvenile transgressors has gained the most momentum in the last 100–150 years (Whitehead & Lab, 2013). A separate juvenile justice system was established in the United States with a goal of diverting youthful offenders from the adult system while encouraging rehabilitation. Today, one would hear that the system’s goal is to react to juveniles in ways that protect the…
- 1155 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
Juveniles should not be tried as adults when they commit serious crimes, because the adult prison is too violent with juveniles not mature and fully mentally developed, and children in the adult criminal justice system are more likely to…
- 937 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
I. Introduction: Many people would currently be surprised to find that youths being tried by Juvenile Courts are not afforded the basic rights guaranteed to our nation’s citizens by our Constitution. Advocates continue to push for more juvenile rights in the court system but many youths who find themselves in trouble will not be afforded basic rights and the due process of law based on their age. This paper will discuss the evolution of basic rights in the juvenile courts system, the current state of the issue, and suggestions…
- 797 Words
- 4 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Since the change of crime and time juveniles are committing adult crimes. The system is so well establish. Judges preside over juvenile court in all states. The implication of doing away with the juvenile system will just only cause confusing and cause the system to obstruct the entire criminal justice system.…
- 1869 Words
- 8 Pages
Better Essays -
Juveniles in the adult criminal system are 34% more likely to be rearrested for another crime than youth retained in the juvenile system (Key Facts: Youth in the Justice System) so there for the juveniles aren’t learning their lesson. More and more teens are doing time alongside adults in prison recently after 100s years of adolescents committing serious crimes. Most juveniles tried as adults usually become reoffenders, they are not mature enough for adult jails, and they deserve another shot. Ultimately, the Juvenile Justice System was invented exactly for this purpose.…
- 874 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Juvenile incarceration has created a lot of uncertainties in the legal justice system. This is because it is often assumed that indeed there are several persons that are underage that at the time of the crime did not have the proper mental reasoning to appreciate that indeed they were committing a crime. For this reason, there has been several problems regarding Juvenile incarceration and it has been argued that there is a need to re-evaluate and ensure that indeed the problems that affect the system are given the proper judicial involvement and justice. . This paper is going to examine how different it is from adults and juvenile when it comes to…
- 575 Words
- 3 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Juveniles have been incarcerated in secure facilities since 1974. Juveniles are committing more heinous crimes and citizens have advocated for tougher penalties on crime. They want justice for the violence perpetrated on their families, businesses and communities. The Juvenile Justice system is charged with simultaneously protecting the public as well as reforming those juveniles who are convicted and sentenced to secure facilities. Barry C. Feld (1995) believes that there is a “desire to "get tough," fueled in part by frustration with the intractability of crime, that provides political impetus to transfer some young offenders to criminal courts for prosecution as adults and to strengthen the sanctioning powers of juvenile courts”(p.966).…
- 300 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Juvenile offenders sometimes commit crimes that are equal to or of higher quality than those of adults; however, punishing them as adults in adult prisons will do no justice; they are less competent to stand trial, adult prisons can harm them mentally, physically, and emotionally, and they more often than not choose the actions they do because of…
- 1464 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
The juvenile justice system and the adult justice system share their commonalities and differences. For example, the juvenile justice system makes it the point to rehabilitate instead of punishing juvenile delinquents. However, one must take into consideration that punishment is still a feasible concept within the juvenile system, but it is used prudently as a “last resort.” In instances of punishment for a teenager who is accused of an atrocious crime, he or she may be tried as an adult (Goldstein, 2007). According to Dr. Goldstein (2007) there are some similarities between the two justice systems as he states that “the police, judiciary, and corrections have discretion relative to decision making in both systems.”…
- 382 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Juveniles do not deserve life sentences, because placing them in a facility with adults will only decrease the possibility…
- 805 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
In contemporary society, there is a debate over whether a separate justice system should exist for juveniles and adults. While some juveniles have demonstrated the need for a separate justice system for juveniles, others have proven otherwise. There are separate justice systems for juvenile and adult offenders because of the belief that the mind of juveniles can be reformed unlike adult offenders. However, the juvenile justice system is similar to the adult justice system in many ways. In terms of the rights of the offenders, both juvenile and adult offenders have the right to an attorney, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the right to protection against self-incrimination, the right to notice of charges, and prosecution needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt…
- 615 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays