A Juvenile Court and an Adult Court - Coursework Example

Punishing juveniles would give the juveniles a criminal tag which would be hard to remove. They would consider themselves criminals and live a life based on it. The court's objective of making the society crime-free is better achieved by making juveniles responsible citizens of the state by providing them an environment where it would get easier for them to refrain from criminal activities.

The most disagreeable difference between juvenile and adult courts is denying juveniles the right to jury trials. This practice gives the judge the sole power to pass on a decision. The judge enjoys extraordinary independence in deciding as he/she does not have to take into account the views of the jury, as none exists. The chance of giving a wrong decision increases as human negligence and error is more likely to occur as decisions are made by one single person who is not assisted by the jury. Moreover, having a jury in place would show the juvenile the concerned society has for him. This would help him in realizing his responsibilities towards society.

To improve this difference, a jury trial should be mandatory for juvenile cases, not just their constitutional right. Not only would it benefit the accused, but it would also help society in understanding the problems facing juveniles. Collectively, the ety can come up with provisions to eradicate these problems.

The Supreme Court decision in Re Gault drastically changed the juvenile courts. Do you agree with the decision and the rights granted as a result of the decision? Explain the possible positive and negative impacts of the decision and why you support or oppose the court ruling.

The decision of the court in Re Gault departed from the informal pattern applied in juvenile courts to the more due process approach. Though the decision is highly debatable, I perse with it. The rights granted to juveniles in this decision are a huge step towards procedural regularization of the juvenile court, the lack of which results in personal opinions or remedies being imposed instead of legal ones. With these rights granted, the difference between the adult's coaldust’s juvenile court has diminished. The critics of this decision might argue that the main objective of juvenile courts, which was to provide parental-like help and support to juveniles, has died with these rights granted. Now, due process would be given more importance than the welfare of the child. What they need to see also is the empowerment granted to juveniles and their cases legally. Not only will juveniles be notified of the charges on them, but they will also be given a council to present them in court. This will give the juvenile a chance to better present himself before the court.

The decision cannot be regarded as absolutely right or wrong. Some of the positive and negative aspects of the decision are highlighted above. Though the doctrine of parents patriae would be less dominant, uniformity in decisions would be noticed as legal aspects would be more of a concern than the welfare of the child. So, a lenient judge and a strict one would both come to the same decision. Rather than by-passing law to cater to the child’s welfare, justice will be served.