The Juvenile Justice System in the USA - Research Paper Example

The Juvenile Justice System in the USA Abstract The United States justice system recognizes that minors also engage in criminal and other unlawful activities. However, the system sets a boundary between the adult justice system and the juvenile justice system. The two systems are differentiated by procedure and sentencing. The paper discusses in detail the juvenile justices system in the United States and compares it to the adult justice system. The paper provides a brief background of the juvenile system in the United States. It also analyses the essence of the system for the country’s justice system. The paper also discusses the concept of parens pariae in the juvenile justice system. The concept provides a deeper understanding of the role of the State in juvenile cases. In addition, the paper provides an analysis into the treatment of juvenile offenders in the justice system. The analysis uses theory and case examples. The Juvenile Justice System The United States established the juvenile justice system to separate adult and juvenile proceedings and incarcerations. Prior to the establishment of juvenile justice system, juvenile offenders were tried in a criminal court and incarcerated in adult prisons. As a result, the juvenile offenders went through horrendous experiences. The first juvenile court was established in Illinois, and the concept spread to other States. Juvenile courts were tasked with determining juvenile cases, detaining the guilty offenders in juvenile facilities that are separate from the adults to enhance their protection (Hess, 2009). This was meant to avoid exposing juveniles to harsh conditions that would make it harder for them to rehabilitate. The essence of the juvenile justice system is to separate the underage offenders from adult offenders. In law, adult offenders are tried in a criminal court and the sentence serves as a punishment for the crime. Courts consider the gravity of the crime when making decisions. Thus, the courts punish adult offenders for the particular crimes. However, the juvenile justice system focuses on the person rather than the crime the juvenile person has committed. The point implies the focus is to renovate and rehabilitate a juvenile rather than criminal punishment (Siegel, 2011). However, the juvenile justice system considers the gravity of the offence and may propose a form of punishment. The punishment is carried out in consideration of the parens pariae doctrine. The parens pariae doctrine asserts that the State has the legal right to take up a parenting role for the good of the child (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2011). As such, the actions taken in the juvenile justice system are meant to assist juveniles change and adhere to the laws and societal norms. The concept of parens pariae is evident in this system. A child has the right to be corrected through fair hearing and determination of a case. The State must put the child in a place where conditions suit the child. In this regard, the motive of the juvenile system is to straighten wayward behavior rather than punishing young offenders. The Supreme Court decision in the In re Gault (1967) case emphasized on the role of the State in protecting juveniles. The court held that juvenile trials must be maintained as civil proceedings and protected from loss of liberty. The decisions meant that young offenders could not be denied their constitutional rights. The court held that the juvenile offenders should have the right to legal counsel, ability to appeal, and also protection from self-incrimination. The rights are aimed at lessening the severity of juvenile incarceration. Parens pariae is also portrayed in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act in 1974. The Act stresses that States should play the parental role and deliver justice just as a parent. Some of the requirements in this Act are meant to reduce the level of punishment, and also the number of juvenile convicts. One of the requirements is avoiding incarceration or institutionalizing offenders who have committed status offenses (Sherman & Jacobs, 2011). Also, there is a requirement to take deliberate measures to minimize juvenile incarceration. The above discussion shows that the juvenile justice system takes the role of a parent when a juvenile breaks the law or the social norms. The State should thus continue playing the parent role when the child is under its custody. The offence that triggers legal proceedings should be treated as a secondary consideration. The interest of the child always comes first in the juvenile justice system. As noted above, the concept of parens pariae offers a form of protection for juvenile offenders. As such, their system is unique from start to adjudication. The legal rights of juveniles create the differences between the two justice systems. The differences are evident in the procedure. Normally, juvenile cases are heard and adjudicated by individual judges. The point implies that the judges have the sole discretion of determining whether a juvenile is guilty. Unlike the adult procedure where the suspect is tried, the role of the court in the juvenile justice system is to find facts that justify whether a crime was committed or not. The fact that juveniles are tried by judges imply that there is no option for bail. Juveniles can be released pending adjudication hearings if they prove to be reliable in attending court proceedings. However, adult offenders are released before trial if they are offered bail and adhere to the terms of the bail. Adult proceedings in the United States are decided by a jury. As in adult proceedings, the judges sue a set guideline while dealing with juvenile offenders. The guideline pertains the procedure as well as sentencing. The juvenile justice system protects offenders from severe penalties. Junior offenders may not be handed capital punishments for offences they commit in juvenile years. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), Roper appeals against a death sentence imposed by lower courts for murder crimes. The lower courts found him guilty of murder. However, the decision was unsatisfactory since he committed the murder while he was 17 years. The Supreme Court decided that such punishment contradicts juvenile laws since the crime was committed while in juvenile years. Such a sentence contravenes the Eighth Amendment that outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. The above case example conforms to Siegel’s (2011) explanation that that juvenile are protected from extreme verdicts that their crimes deserve. However, the adult justice system does not consider any protections and applies the criminal law, procedure and sentencing to the latter. As noted, the aim of the adult justice system is to punish the guilty. Adults can face capital punishments for capital crimes without the possibility of a reversal in the Supreme Court. Consequently, adult justice may sentence an offender to life without parole for various crimes. Sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment is subject to a further interpretation of the juvenile law as seen in Miller v. Alabama (2012). In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Court held that it is in contrary to the constitution to sentence a junior offender to life imprisonment without an option for parole. Miller and his friends killed his neighbor by clubbing him and burning his trailer. All the participants in the crime were sentenced to life imprisonment without a possibility of parole. Miller was 14 years at the time of the crime. With a majority, the court held that imprisoning a juvenile offender to a mandatory life imprisonment voided his constitutional right under the Eight Amendment. The decision extended the rights of juveniles to include homicide. In Graham v. Florida (2010), the court had held that juvenile rights to be excluded from serving mandatory life imprisonments excluded homicide. Despite the fact that juveniles are protected from criminal trials, there are situations where courts require to strike a balance between public safety, correction and punishment of young offenders. As a result, the court may impose some adult sanctions on a juvenile. Young offenders, especially between the ages of 14 to 17 years may stand trial as adults. They are subjected to a jury for determination of serious cases such as rape and murder. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the court used a jury trial despite that Roper was 17 years. The holdings were grounded on the fact that homicide was a serious crime. Roper was tried as an adult and also sentenced as an adult. In fact, a majority of juvenile proceedings in the country culminate in blended sentences. In conclusion, the juvenile justice system offers an alternative way to deal with offenders who have not attained the legal age to be tried as adults. As such the juvenile justice system offers correctional services for offenders who may not be conversant with the law or societal norms. The juvenile justice system is different from the adult justice system in terms of procedure and sentencing. The juvenile system must appreciate the legal right of the young offender and also consider the needs of the society. The discussion shows that courts can strike a balance in correcting junior offenders and preserving the public safety. References Burfeind, J. W., & Bartusch, D. J. (2011). Juvenile delinquency: An integrated approach. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Graham v. Florida, 560 US ---- Supreme Court of the United States. (2010). Hess, K. (2009). Juvenile justice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 Supreme Court of the United States (1967). Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ Supreme Court of the United States. (2012). Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 Supreme Court of the United States. (2005). Sherman, F. T., & Jacobs, F. H. (2011). Juvenile justice: Advancing research, policy, and practice. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Siegel, L. J. (2000). Criminology. Boston, Ma: Cengage Learning. Read More