Introduction
American supreme court pronounced in its historic judgment in 2005, that offenders below the age of 18 would not face the death penalty, even though they perpetrated heinous crimes. This classification calls for making a person lesser guilty owing to adolescent age. The ruling is hinged on the issue of culpability. In other words, it is criminal blameworthiness. The cardinal issue at hand is whether a person can solely be held responsible for a crime committed by him or some extraneous or other factors also contributed significantly to the construction of crime. Culpability is at variance with competence.
It is a function of the offender s’ condition of mind right at the time of the commission of the offense. It also combines the factors that are instrumental in increasing or decreasing the degree of the onus of the crime committed. This ruling is in fact affront to the sweeping trend of supporting stringent penalties for juveniles. Influenced by the high crime rate and consequently public safety at stake, every state felt justified during the last decade to lower the age at which juveniles could face trial and be sentenced to punishment for wider categories of crime. “These changes coupled with other arrangements have resulted in the prosecution of more than 200,000 youths as adults in the criminal justice administration system every year” (Allard, P., & Young, M. (2002). Prosecuting juveniles in adult court: Perspectives for policymakers and practitioners).
Those who are in favor of tight laws for youth think that those youths who have committed heinous crimes deserve to be properly condemned. If we merely slap on their wrist, they would be encouraged to commit more serious nature of crimes. They further argue that it is highly crude to continue to rely on a system, which is outdated, and unfit to cater for the deterrent functions against the increased wave of crime. There is growing fashion among youth to entangle themselves in fistfights in educational places, equipping themselves with guns and others, which fall in the category of adult offenses. Media often drums up the lead stories of these crimes, which cause much sensation. “Just as adults are often confused on how to treat teenagers, societies also struggle how to deal with youthful offenders” (Constitutional Rights Foundation, Juvenile Offenders).
The juvenile justice system
However, the juvenile justice system assumes that adolescents are not the same as adults and this makes them lesser deserving for the responsibility of a given crime and they must be given certain waivers when they are being tried. It has been the repeated contention of the legal system that the criminal penalty should be commensurate with the magnitude of the injury caused coupled with the blameworthiness of the person committing the crime.
The onus of the crime on a person for a crime rests upon the conditions in which it has been committed along with the actual offender. Conventionally, courts have taken into account several factors, which also contribute to the perpetuation of a crime. These factors have the effect of decreasing the culpability of the defendant. These include bettered decision-making ability owing to the distorted mind; leverage of the conditions under which one has no choice but to recourse to violent crime and the character of the person. Such factors in no way recommend that an offender should not be tried in a court of law or should be given absolute exemption from the jurisdiction of laws.
However, they do recommend that the quantity of punishment should be lesser as compared to other identical crimes committed under a different paradigm, which is characterized by the absence of these factors. The immaturity of a person should be given significant importance while deciding the fate of an offender in a trial process.
The networks’ study of juvenile culpability undertook extensive research and consequently has come up with very strong evidence that juveniles, in general, should be treated differently than adults. They should not be allowed to harden themselves in their attitude. Many studies have revealed that approximately at the age of sixteen, the cognitive capabilities of juveniles now closely resemble that of adults. However, in real-lifetime situations, decision-making is highly influenced by momentary compulsions and the company of peers. In such conditions, other attributes of youth like myopic vision; vulnerability, and the proneness to the influence of peers can all impair the quality of decision-making capacity.
The figures put forward by the research do underline an important reality that intellectual abilities do not grow after the age of sixteen, yet the psychological capability continues to evolve even after that age unto the initial periods of adulthood. One very important factor of tangible decision-making is the ability to perceive the future consequences of an act. These studies project that if adults and juveniles are asked to envision the future, they have a diverse response.
Adults tend to predict a future, which spans over a longer period and have a mature approach while juveniles are shortsighted. Adolescents cannot anticipate the future sufficiently and tend to engross themselves with immediate future that too with certain loopholes. It is also established by scientific studies that aging individuals are less likely to slip towards impulsivity and keep themselves under enormous control while it is quite opposite in the case of adolescents. The latter category of people is less sensitized towards retribution and more inclined towards the rewards. Adolescents feel themselves under significant duress of peers. Their perceived approval or snubbing at the hands of their peers may lead them to the commitment of offenses of a very serious nature. Risk undertaking is more likely to happen in the presence of peers.
Research shows that merely the company of friends encourages adolescents to undertake more risks as compared to their propensity in the absence of peers. Many adolescents regard it as an infirmity not to stand in the face of a challenge and resultantly a source of much embarrassment. These arguments are by no means intended to mellow down the severity of certain crimes. However, these stress the point that the immature stage of adolescence must be kept in view as a mitigating factor while deciding the fate of such people. It is the same line of thinking which makes a juvenile ineligible to vote for a person in general elections and restrain their capability to sit in a jury and apply minds on complex situations and come out with confidence-inspiring judgments.
According to Helena Valkova, a Czech juvenile Justice law “defines the features of a legal system that is based on the principle that all measures, procedures, and instruments … must be used for the restoration of broken social relations, the integration of the young person into the wider social environment, and Delinquency prevention.” Some advance the proposition that the courts should weigh each case separately and form their opinion on the maturity of the given offender.
There is a need to develop and perfect the tools needed to gauge the psychological maturity of the accused persons. In the light of the above analysis, it is logical and by all accounts feasible to take adolescents as a distinguished legal category. They should be classified separately in matters of prosecution and several factors must be kept in view when the construction of decision is undertaken. The juvenile system accepts the responsibility of offenders but at the same time is not oblivious to the development stage of juveniles and thus punishes accordingly. It gives an appropriate amount of counteractive dosage and ensures the sustain table law and order for a peaceful and healthy society.
Furthermore, the alternative policy does bring forth desired results. “There is no evidence that transfer has any general deterrent value; the inaction and implementation of well-publicized transfer legislation do not appear to decrease the incidence of target offenses” (Bishop, Juveniles Prosecuted As Adults Reoffend More To Or Higher Than Comparable Youths: Prosecuting Juveniles).
Conclusion
Having said all this there must be no ignorance to the safety of society as some youths are inclined to commit the most abominable crimes. They can be prosecuted in adult courts as an exception. Figures available show that their number is not very large and it is not a matter of concern if they are prosecuted in adult courts. “Juvenile crime is down, in contrast to the turbulent 1990s when politicians vied to pass laws to get violent kids off the streets” (Associated Press, Prosecuting Kids As Adults: Are Laws Too Tough). Legislators have begun to appreciate the fact that prosecuting juveniles as adults is very costly for the youths and their near and dear ones. Scientific data must be focused on whenever the destiny of the future builders of the nation is going to be drafted.
References
Constitutional Rights Foundation (2005), Juvenile Offenders. Web.
Bishop (2001), Juveniles Prosecuted As Adults Reoffend More To Or Higher Than Comparable Youths: Prosecting Jeviniles. 2008. Web.
Associated press (2007), Prosecuting Kids As Adults: Are Laws Too Tough. Msnbc. 2008. Web.
Allard, P., & Young, M. (2002). Prosecuting juveniles in adult court: Perspectives for policymakers and practitioners. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 6, 65-78.
Valkova, Helena (2003), “New Juvenile Justice Law in the Czech Republic” (Sevilla, Spain: ESC, Thematic Working Group on Juvenile Justice, 2003). Web.