Juvenile Justice
The US justice system treats juvenile offenders differently from adults. However, it was not always that way, as juvenile justice had to take a long rode from almshouses in the early 1800s to “tough on crime” policy in the 1990s. In the early history of the US, juvenile offenders were treated as adults and often put to almshouses, one-room buildings where people with different types of problems were kept (Mallett, 2018). However, in 1850-1890, the child-saving movement emerged that utilized the principle of parens partiae, creating reform schools, which were run by parent-like figures (Mallett, 2018). In the early 1900s, juvenile courts were established, finally separating the juvenile justice system form the criminal justice system (Mallett, 2018). Up until the 1980s, the US society fought for the rights of the young people until the “tough on crime” policy emerged (Mallett, 2018). In the 1990s, the country experienced a significant rise in juvenile crime, making the government dismantle the parens partiae approach and trial many juvenile offenders as adults if they committed serious crimes.
The US education system often played the central part in supporting the juvenile justice system. Schools often help to prevent juvenile offenses and supervise offenders. Thus, education facilities help juvenile offenders to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. The education system often plays the role of the advocate of children’s rights and freedoms (Mallett, 2018).
Today, courts treat adults and juveniles differently, as the central purpose of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation rather than punishment. The idea behind the mattes it hat children are weak both mentally and physically, and they cannot make sound decisions. Interventions addressing juvenile delinquency often focus on schools and families to prevent crime (Flores, 2003). This is done because, unlike crime among adults, juvenile delinquency is caused by peer pressure and family problems (Flores, 2003). Thus, the juvenile justice system differs considerably from the criminal justice system.
Case Study
The case study pictures a cyberbully that was assaulted by the targeted teen for revealing romantic online conversations. As a result of the assault, the parents of the cyberbully decided to press charges against the targeted teen. The case study describes a complicated situation that consists of two types of deviant behavior. First, the targeted teen committed a simple assault towards the cyberbully, as he caused an injury to another person (Mince-Didier, n.d.). If the parents press charges against the targeted teen, the case will be heard in a juvenile court, which may punish the offender with jail time, community service, probation, restitution, anger management classes, and fines (Mince-Didier, n.d.). Since the assault is mild, it is unlikely the targeted teen will be incarcerated.
Second, the high school freshman who created a fake social media account is guilty of cyberbullying. The situation with cyberbullying is not as simple as with simple assault, as there is no federal law that acknowledges such crime. State laws about cyberbullying vary from state to state, and the punishment may differ from criminal sanctions to suspension and expulsion (Gordon, 2020). However, schools always accept the responsibility for addressing the fact of bullying under Title IX, and Section 504 that requires federally funded school districts addresses such incidents (Gordon, 2020). Considering the fact that two behaviors occurred concurrently, it is difficult to make adequate judgments.
In order to avoid biases, I recommend addressing the two offenses separately. First, I believe that the school authorities should use sanctions against the cyberbully to prevent further abuses. The school should utilize the school policy concerning bullying as a guiding document for choosing a sanction. Second, the simple assault case should be taken to court where the judge should decide appropriate sanctions based on the report made by the probation officers. The most appropriate sanctions are ramification and anger management classes if the offender does not have a history of deviant behavior.
At the same time, the situation can be resolved at the school level. For instance, the school authorities may promise the parents to avoid expulsion and use probation to both students, if parents of the cyberbully avoid pressing charges against the teenager. The idea behind the approach is to avoid processing adolescents through the system. According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation (2018), recidivism among adolescents that were not processed through the juvenile justice system is lower in comparison with those who were trialed and sentenced. Moreover, the approach supports rehabilitation, as the two teens will have to spend time together in detention.
The approach used to juvenile offenders, however, cannot be used in the case if both students are of legal age. Adults are believed to be able to make sound decisions and resist bullying; thus, the approach discussed above would be inappropriate. Moreover, the sanctions towards the target of cyberbullying would be different, as he would be processed through the criminal justice system. An adult offender is likely to receive a fine, up to six months in jail or probation. In summary, while juvenile and criminal justice systems have common grounds, the differences between them are considerable, as similar offenses may be treated differently depending on the age of the offenders.
References
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2018). Transforming juvenile probation: A vision for getting it right. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Flores, R. (2003). Child delinquency. Web.
Gordon, S. (2020). Understanding the legal ramifications of cyberbullying. Very Well Family. Web.
Mallett, C. A. (2018). Disproportionate minority contact in juvenile justice: today’s, and yesterdays, problems. Criminal Justice Studies, 31(3), 230–248.
Mince-Didier, A. (n.d.). Juvenile simple assault. Criminal Defense Lawyer. Web.