Punishment for Juvenile Offenders
Judgment on juvenile cases has always pitted concerns on promoting public safety against attempts to rehabilitate them. Large numbers of the young convicts are being transferred to adult systems following new state regulations. Adult systems now administer around 20% of teenage cases. This withdrawing of the border between juveniles and adults systems of law enforcement has apparently significantly reduced offenses. A child who has been tried as an adult before is less likely to repeat offenses, compared to those who are tried like juniors (Fagan, 2008). This is not yet seen as an effective means of crime control.
Fagan explains that the criminal court exposes juniors to cruel and occasionally ruthless forms of punishment, which may either make them, choose to reform or further harden. The stigma associated with being in the same prison facilities with senior undoubtedly clouds their future communal lives. The risk of making the juvenile worse must be avoided because it would further pose a threat to the community. Making judicial or administrative decisions on whether to transfer them and shorten the age has daunted law makers. Separating those who can be accorded remedial measures from those who deserve transfer to the adult system has resulted in the abandonment of the system’s values. There are cognizant and unaware biases which coerce decisions on who to arrest, how to charge, and how to punish. The application of policy must strive to provide unbiased treatment.
Treatment of Juvenile Delinquents
The law considers those under 18 to be juveniles (Spaeth). There are law enforcement facilities for them which are separate from those of adults. Law enforcers have specifications on how to deal with adolescents and how they are to be treated. While both adults and juveniles are supposed to obey some general crime laws like theft and rape, there are those which may be disobeyed by only juveniles, for example, truancy.
A juvenile may be graded differently by age depending on the state. Some states consider a juvenile’s age to be either 15 or 18 years old. Nevertheless, in some states the level of crime is punished equally for both adults and non-adults. The singular care awarded to juveniles came with a price as they were not accorded some rights given to grown-ups in court, for example, a right to counsel (Spaeth). Reviewers however recommended that they should be offered the same constitutional rights as grown-ups.
Juvenile Reform
Reforms have been done on the juvenile principles which viewed children as immature and not deserving the harsh treatment administered to adults. It was argued that children would be better off being modeled and nurtured to learn their mistakes rather than being confined in cells with adults who may further harden them by their prison behavior (Cornell & Murrie).
The cycle of juvenile justice has continued to evolve since the turn of the 19th century. The press has been blamed by Cornell and Murrie for reporting news related to juvenile crime without ever covering their meritorious deeds. The crimes were reported without providing any information on why they happened. The public is thus misinformed on what is exactly happening to the adolescents.
The cases involving juveniles in the 90s included drug and property offenses, gangs and aggressive transgressions. Several partnerships between schools and the police have significantly helped reduced the incidence of such crimes. Identifying the relationship between student harassment and crime also helped formulate policies which fought delinquency (Juvenile Justice System, N.d).
Modern judges have the authority to punish a crime depending on its seriousness, and whether there exists prior unlawful records. The punishment may be in the form of detention at home accompanied with several probation conditions if there is no record. A prior record would conversely result in imprisonment, in a special institution, till adulthood when they would be transferred to an adult system (Cornell & Murrie). Some models of sentencing require them to be punished like adults but be placed in separate penal institutions. Other models suggest parental advice and strict supervision for those who have been released in order to reduce their chances in crime.
Probation
Probation is the most common form of correcting juveniles. It involves subjecting the offender to electronic examinations and supervisory tactics which ensure they avoid trouble. Probation officers thus face the responsibility of counseling the infantile and looking into their needs. Reshaping the behavior of the kids is the officer’s sole responsibility (Gaines & Miller, 2008).
Juvenile thief Trial
Aged twelve, Winship was charged for theft, an act which could have constituted larceny were it done by an adult. He was found guilty although the evidence was inconclusive. The juvenile was found guilty based on the predominance of the proof. It is argued to be an unfair decision for juveniles. Judgment with no concrete evidence may unfairly land one in jail. The court concluded that sheer discrepancies in age among suspects will not be sufficient to call for different types of evidence, as long as they both face loss of freedom as a probable condemnation (In re Gault, 1967).
Gault, who had previously been placed on probation, purportedly made an obscene call which landed him in custody. The parents were not notified of the arrest as they were at work. The court stated that juvenile courts have a mandatory duty of providing the basic procedural protections which are offered to grown criminals. These include early advance notice of charges, a right to counsel, cross-examination of eyewitness and the right to hush. The underpinning of adolescent court procedures that the dealings are social and that the rights of minors are corseted by judges was dismissed. The due procedures used in the case were not aligned to those stipulated in the constitution.
References
Brennan, J. (1970). In re Winship.Cornell university law school: legal information Institute. Web.
Fagan, J. (2008). Juvenile crime and criminal justice: resolving border disputes. Future of Children. Web.
Gaines, L. & miller, R. (2008). Criminal justice and action. Belmont: Cengage Learning.
In re Gault. (1967). Cornell university law school: legal information institute. Cornell University. Web.
Juvenile Justice System. (N.d). Contemporary juvenile justice system and juvenile detention alternatives. Web.
Spaeth, H. (N.d). Juvenile justice. Answers.com. Web.