Author: Nathan Nelson
October 19, 2012
North Dakota State University
Political Science Dept.
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.
Presentation of Position A: Do Not Abolish the Juvenile System
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.
Presentation of Position B: Abolish the Juvenile System
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).
Critique of
Positions
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” (Butler2011, 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.
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 Schaefer2010, 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. 