Introduction
The President and Congress, through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP), has established and amended the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), or the act that addresses the issues of juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice. To be able to address the said issues more specifically, OJJDP was further divided into seven (7) components, which are the Research and Program Development Division, Training and Technical Assistance Division, Special Emphasis Division, State Relations and Assistance Division, Information Dissemination Unit, Concentration of Federal Efforts Program and Missing Exploited Children’s Program (Griffin et al., 1998).
According to the amended act, there are some instances when a juvenile is sent for adult criminal prosecution. Their cases are transferred from juvenile courts to adult courts through different state transfer mechanisms, which are the Waiver, Direct File and Statutory Exclusion. Waiver provisions allow the decision to transfer the juvenile case to be made by the State’s juvenile courts. There are three (3) types of Waivers. The Discretionary Waiver, which depends upon the Juvenile Court Judge’s discretion of waiving the juvenile case (standards for this waiver are for the best interests of the child and the public), the Mandatory Waiver, which provides certain age, offence, or other criteria to be met by the case, and the Presumptive Waiver, which designates certain groups of cases that makes them rebuttably presumed as appropriate. Another transfer mechanism, the Direct File, allow the decision to transfer the juvenile case to be made by the prosecutor. Last but not least, the Statutory Exclusion allows the decision to transfer the juvenile case to be set forth by the State’s jurisdictions (Griffin et al., 1998).
Juveniles (people below 17 years old) being tried as an adult is a long debate that would touch the issues of child care, the values and morals of treating a child who has done a wrongful act, and all the ethics related to it. When we say “to try a juvenile like an adult”, we mean having them be put on trial like an ordinary adult would be, with the possibilities of facing the same sentences, fines and other sanctions an ordinary adult being tried would have (Thompson, 2006). The nature of OJJDP, when it comes to ages and crimes, differ from one state to another (Griffin et al., 1998).
Discussion
Different perspectives on justice
The first perspective or viewpoint that I would like to present regarding trying juveniles as adults are from the juvenile suspect’s end. In the juvenile’s end, there is a big possibility that in their time of being tried like an adult, they would have “…the stigmatization and other negative effects of labelling juveniles as convicted felons, the sense of resentment and injustice…about being tried and punished as adults, the learning of criminal mores and behaviour while incarcerated with adult offenders, (and be the victims of) decreased focus on rehabilitation and family support in the adult system” (Redding, 2008, p. 7). As addressed on the OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, there are OJJDP-funded studies that led them to realize that there is a dramatic increase in the percentage of juveniles recommitting the offence/crime who have been transferred from the juvenile court to the adult court, as manifested by the data of 40% against 35% on overall recommitted offences/crimes, 24% against 16% on violent offences, 11% against 9% on drug offences, and 14% against 10% on property offences (Redding, 2008). Based on these data, it is evident that juveniles don’t agree to this policy, and as a rebellion and protest, they tend to recommit the crime. When they start to feel and absorb the idea that they are being tried the way the public and the court treat ordinary criminals, they would feel discriminated against and overwhelmed by the fact that their youth is now being exploited. What’s worse is the fact that by this time, they know very well that their future already tampers, and the possibility of renewing life is hampered.
The next perspective that I would like to present is from the victim’s (juvenile or adult) end. According to The Denver’s City Attorney’s Office, generally, victims of juvenile offences/crimes usually feel that the juvenile offenders underserve the sanctions of their actions (2008). The victims are often overlooked by the people who look at the juvenile justice system by merely subjecting the juvenile’s sake. Their offences are only secondary and worse; the sanctions are only at the least of their concerns. In short, victims agree with the policy of trying juveniles like adults because it is no longer the issue of who is being tried; the concern is who has suffered the offence/crime. Since in juvenile justice, the cases are sealed easily, sentences are less severe, and incarcerations are shorter compared to the trial in adult courts (Thompson, 2006), their cry for justice is usually not heard or is only met halfway. It is a disadvantage, though, that the juvenile case is heard in the adult courts when the public attending the case starts to have sympathy for the minor because of his immature capability to be tried like an ordinary criminal (Thompson, 2006). Yet, it is still improper to subject the sake of the offender/criminal at the time when he/she has done something grave that only adult people can do.
The third perspective that’s important to present is the defence attorney’s viewpoint. In this case, the trial of juveniles as adults is an advantage to defence attorneys. Obviously, adult crimes are more common than juvenile offences, making more practising defence attorneys in adult cases rather than juvenile cases. When a juvenile case is transferred to the adult courts, the defence attorney will then find it easier to defend the case since he is more familiar with the rules and regulations in that division. It is also even more likely that he’ll be able to defend further and cross-examine the victim because there is a jury in the adult court, while there is none in the juvenile court (Virginia’s Judicial System, 2003). He’ll be able to present everything that his client has to show because he has more time to convince the people in the court and the public that his client is innocent.
Given the perspective of the defending attorney, now we’ll try to examine the viewpoint of the prosecuting attorney. Still the same as with the victim’s viewpoint, the transfer of juvenile cases to adult courts is an advantage to the prosecuting attorney. Since they are on the side of the victim, the possibility that they will receive a just evaluation of the cases, amidst the fact that the offender is a juvenile, is regarded with a lot of possibilities. The prosecuting attorney’s goal is to win the case and send the offender to jail. And given the fact that the juvenile is tried on an adult court that has a jury, as contrasted to a juvenile court where the judge is the only one who has the power to decide over the case (Virginia’s Judicial System, 2003), there is a great assumption that the evidence will be presented. Equally, the public will be able to give their judgment accordingly, and his client will be heard sufficiently. The prosecuting team also has the great chance that the treatment inside the courtroom is fair (given that the offender is a juvenile) if the public won’t look at the juvenile as an incompetent offender whose case is being heard in an inappropriate court. Also, since the trial in an adult court is far more lengthy than that of the trial in a juvenile court, the prosecuting attorney, therefore, has all the time to all necessary evidence needed to win the case.
The fifth perspective that is as important as the previous viewpoints are the judge’s perspective. The judge’s responsibilities in a juvenile court are basically the same as that of the adult court, which is to ensure truth inside the court. Yet, in an adult court, the judge is there to hear the jury’s decision over the case. I’d say that trying a juvenile in an adult court is a disadvantage for the judge. Primarily, the reason for this is that the judge now has an extra responsibility of ensuring that the child is treated accordingly and usually treated far from the way the adult court treats an ordinary criminal. The judge has to take into consideration that the case was transferred from juvenile courts because of the fact that the case is too serious about being heard in the juvenile courts, yet the defendant is also too immature to be tried in an adult court. The judge has to be keen on instances when the juvenile is starting to feel intimidated and verbally abused inside the courtroom because he may be too young to know everything that a defendant must know in having his case heard in a courtroom.
Last but not least, among the important perspectives that need to be cited in terms of trying juveniles as adults, the public’s viewpoint will now be discussed. I think the public will disagree with the fact that juveniles will be tried like adults. The usual feelings are sympathy and empathy out of the thinking that the child’s future is being affected by misconduct that is otherwise correctable by more shallow sanctions in the juvenile courts. Following various cultures, mores, beliefs, traditions and even religions pertaining to the issue of punishing criminals and many law-related debates, the public will most likely disagree with this policy. It has been mentioned earlier in this essay that there is a big possibility that the public will have more sympathy for minors being treated in adult courts than in juvenile courts due to the fact that the latter hears juvenile cases more often (Thompson, 2006), it then implies that they’d prefer the juvenile to be tried in a juvenile court. It is not uncommon to hear comments like “There are more serious cases and punishable criminals who deserve to be heard compared to him” from the public in these instances, and rather than thinking that the juveniles are basically ordinary criminals who only happen to be young at age, their opinions for a fair justice will be diverted to feelings of sympathy.
A personal view on the issue
Following many readings related to trying juveniles as adults, I firmly believe that transferring juvenile cases to adult courts is not a helpful idea for many reasons.
Basically, one of the reasons why a defendant’s case is heard is to be able to punish him and correct his wrongfully act. If this is the case, then transferring juvenile cases to adult courts is not helpful in terms of the juvenile’s sake, because as mentioned, the growing percentage of recidivism of juvenile offenders doesn’t give a mark up for the policy. Instead of rehabilitating them towards a changed attitude and ideals and reshaping him so he could establish a more productive life, he is immersed with criminals who would only exploit further his mind. Thus he develops a more irreversible structure of life. Instead of mingling with other detainees in juvenile detention centres who probably have less severe offences, he is exposed to a variety of serious felonies that make him think that there are worse people around him and thus give him the curiosity to explore more the criminal world. And definitely, there is an increased probability that support groups are scarce because of the prohibitions being practised in an adult court, making him impossible to develop a sense of self-esteem and self-confidence, which are crucial during these times (Redding, 2008).
According to Tom Head, the purpose of hearing cases and giving sanctions to criminals accordingly is to protect the public from criminals (2008). There are a variety of ways by which the judicial system achieves these purposes: by sending the criminals to prison and having them pay their fines ensures that justice is attained; by engaging them in many productive tasks make them regain self-fulfilment in jails and decreases the possibility that they will resort back to the wrong action in the future. These are the things on which the judicial system should be focusing onto: the ways to protect the public yet ensuring that the offenders are still living a humane life. What the juvenile tried as the adult policy is bringing about is only having the juveniles suffer the sanctions of their crimes and not taking into consideration their welfare. To think that the youth is a critical period of growth of humans, the future of the juvenile offenders are ignored, suppressed and abandoned by the OJJDP.
Conclusion
There are a lot of things to consider in deciding whether OJJDP will mark an improvement or failure in the judicial system. We have to regard all sides and opinions to be able to arrive at a concrete idea.
Since we are speaking of juveniles, it is important to know that youth is a training ground in a human’s life. Whatever he/she experiences in his younger years greatly influence what he is most likely going to be when he grows up. In view of this, I can defend that juveniles must not be tried as adults, and instead, their cases shall stay in the juvenile courts for their benefit.
There are still many reasons to cite, yet however complicated, it all boils down to a single plea: to save the lives of the youth and rehabilitate them at an early stage so they could become better citizens in their adulthood.
References
Denver City Attorney’s Office. “Juvenile Court: As a victim what should you be aware of?” 2008. City and Country of Denver.
Griffin, Patrick; Torbet, Patricia; and Szymanski, Linda. “Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court: An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1998. 2008. Web.
Head, Tom. “Department of Justice Report: Trying Juveniles as Adults Does More Harm Than Good” 2008. Web.
Redding, Richard. “Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency?” OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. 2008: 5 – 7.
Juvenile Justice Clearing House. 2008. Web.
Thompson, Steve. “Trying Juveniles as Adults Q&A” 2006. Web.
Virginia’s Judicial System. “The Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court” 2003. Web.