the System
Dana Cowan
Abstract
- This article reports that abolishing the juvenile court would produce a more just system of court for the juvenile offender. This article is in pro perspective of the abatement of the juvenile court. The failing Juvenile justice court system ceasing to be the avenue for the youth offenders is the research topic. The research question is what would be the the effects of abolishing the Juvenile Justice System in the United States. The findings in the research support the theory that the juvenile justice system provides a mere second-class criminal court for young people. The juvenile court is no longer the social welfare institution first intended, yet is a penal system that provides young offenders little justice (if any). This article will describe the effects of the combination of the juvenile courts with the criminal courts, and where the rights of the juvenile would be granted and improved.
- The abolishing of the juvenile court and infusing it with the criminal court would produce a more just system of court for the juvenile offender. “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”(1 Corinthians 13.King James Version). In the committing of crimes a youth proves within the act itself that they are no longer a child. In the case of young adults they are not able to defend themselves among adult criminals. That is not saying the result of abolishing the Juvenile Justice System would institute placing juvenile offenders in adult institutions. Rather, Abolishing the juvenile justice system would result in adult safeguards for the juvenile in the criminal courts, provide for jury trials, prevent the previous offenses to affect the finding of guilt (a right given to adults), omit status offenders from the criminal justice system and allow for the mitigating factor of youthfulness to be considered during sentencing.
B.Field finds in the 1997 article Abolish The Juvenile Court: Youthfulness, Criminal Responsibility, And Sentencing Policy “...explicitly punitive sentences do not require judges or correctional authorities to confine young people with adults in jails and prisons, as is the current practice for waived youths,[161] or to consign them to custodial warehouses or "punk prisons." States should maintain separate age-segregated youth correctional facilities to protect both younger offenders and older inmates. Even though youths may be somewhat responsible for their criminal conduct, they may not be the physical or psychological equals of adults in prison. While some youths may be vulnerable to victimization or exploitation by more physically developed adults, other youths may pose a threat to older inmates. Younger offenders have not learned to "do easy time," pose more management problems for correctional administrators, and commit more disciplinary in&actions while they serve their sentences.[162] Existing juvenile detention facilities, training schools, and institutions provide the option to segregate inmates on the basis of age or other risk factors. Some research indicates that youths sentenced to juvenile correctional facilities may recidivate somewhat less often, seriously, or rapidly than comparable youths sentenced to adult facilities.[163] However, these findings provide modest support for a separate youth correctional system rather than for an entirely separate juvenile justice system”(Field,1997, p116).
The scope and focus of this paper is not including the placement of the adjudicated, it is assumed that the current system of separation between the youth and adult criminal institutions for most offenders would remain the same ,changing only the ability to retain authority over the adjudicated beyond the age of majority, depending on the outcome of a trial where the same rights are afforded the youth as are afforded the adults. It is assumed at the age of adulthood the youth would be transferred to adult institutions.
“I propose to abolish the juvenile court with trepidation. On the one hand, combining enhanced procedural safeguards with a "youth discount" in an integrated criminal court can provide young offenders with greater protections and justice than they currently receive in the juvenile system, and more proportional and humane consequences than judges presently inflict on them in the criminal justice system ... On the other hand, politicians may ignore the significance of youthfulness as a mitigating factor and use these proposals to escalate the punishment of young people. Although abolition of the juvenile court, enhanced procedural protections, and a "youth discount" constitute essential components of a youth sentencing policy package,[167] nothing can prevent legislators from selectively choosing only those elements that serve their "get tough" agenda”(Field, 1997, p. 133). Field notes that the “youth discount” would be granted to to the youth during sentencing and can help to prevent excessive punitive sentencing and trial results. The possibility of unusually hard punishments is assumed and is dependent upon the social temperature of the “get tough” agenda. Resulting in the creation of a bias towards the youthful offender and a discredit of the mitigating factor of youthfulness. There slight to little difference in the possibility of overly harsh punishments handed down in the juvenile court or what will be handed down in a solely criminal court today causing the possibility of heavy handed sentencing to be moot due to the fact that this is already a practice among the juvenile courts. With or without the juvenile court the practice of heavy sentencing will remain alive and well, thanks to the “Get tough” agenda that is generally a social acceptance. The result of abolishing the juvenile court would create no noticeable abatement in the severity and frequency of harsh and seemingly UN-just sentences handed down to juveniles.
A pro in the abolishing the juvenile courts is the loss of bias that is caused by prior contact with the justice system, In criminal court cases previous convictions can not be used against the accused because a previous conviction is irrelevant to the case at hand. In direct opposition to this right granted to adults, in the juvenile court the priors and past history is a large factor in the case and a majority factor in sentencing itself. Gibeaut finds concern on this matter stating the problem of disclosure involving information that is irrelevant to the cause at hand “But critics complain that juvenile court judges often cannot act as impartial fact-finders because they have difficulty weeding out irrelevant information, such as kids' prior records, which a jury never would hear” ( Gibeaut, 1999, p24). Consideration of irrelevancy in the juveniles trial would be prevented in criminal court and that would be a positive result for the abolishing of the juvenile court.
The previous quote leads to another discrepancy between the juvenile court and the criminal court systems in place today that would be corrected by the abolishing of the juvenile courts. The discrepancy is jury trials. The absence of jury trials in juvenile courts is in direct conflict with The Constitution of the United States via Article VI or VII of The Bill of Rights, depending on if the case is considered criminal or civil. Field expresses this concern to further the point “Because McKeiver endorsed a treatment justification for its decision, the right to a jury trial provides the crucial legal condition precedent to punish youths explicitly in juvenile courts. Several recent juvenile justice legislative reforms provide some youths with a statutory right to a jury in order to expand the punitive sentencing options available to juvenile court judges”(Field, 1997, p74).The absence of the jury is an injustice to the juvenile. The establishment of jury trials for juveniles in the criminal court would be a result of the abolishing of the juvenile justice system. This would correct an injustice towards the youth in the courts.
The current juvenile court system waives many youth to adult criminal court for trial. This waving to criminal court does not improve the rate of recidivism by the youth. Steward-Lindsey's research indicates that transfer does nothing to reduce recidivism.'' In fact, transferring juveniles for adult criminal proceedings may actually increase recidivism rates: a study focused on the aftereffects of transfer to the adult court system found that youths who were transferred were three times more likely to re-offend than those who remained in the juvenile court system” (Steward-Lindsey, 2006 , p110). The transferring of youth to the criminal courts causes a greater likelihood of new crimes. This practice would be halted by abolishing the juvenile courts and having all criminal acts be tried in criminal courts, that allow for the mitigating factor of youthfulness. In The article Juvenile justice in Austria and the United States: similarities and differences results on abolishing the juvenile justice system are addressed “...or at least totally abolishing juvenile court jurisdiction over status offenders, that is, youths whose offenses would not be crimes if committed by adults. If the juvenile court were abolished, juveniles who commit offenses that would also be criminal offenses for adults, would be tried in the criminal court” (Kratcoski , Edelbacher, 2009, p12-13).
In stating a definition of criminal acts , such acts must be defined to correct the irrational punishment of civil decisions by juvenile as criminal in offense, the status offenders must be excluded from grouping in the criminal category. Status offenders are not accused of violence, theft, abuse, rape,murder,drug dealing or any other such criminal acts found within the criminal court system. Yet, in the juvenile justice system status offenders are treated as such , in some cases, status offenders are treated more harshly that the criminal actors. In abolishing the juvenile justice system status offenders would be removed from the criminal courts. This would allow for a more reasonable way to deal with the civil offenses of the status offender. These offenses would not be considered a violation if the juvenile was an adult.
“Legislative recognition that juvenile courts often failed to realize their benevolent purposes has led to a strategic retrenchment of juvenile courts' jurisdiction over non-criminal misconduct such as truancy or incorrigibility, behavior that would not be a crime if committed by an adult. In the 1970s, critics objected that juvenile courts' status jurisdiction treated non-criminal offenders indiscriminately like criminal delinquents, disabled families and other sources of referral through one-sided intervention, and posed insuperable legal issues for the court.[14] Judicial and legislative disillusionment with juvenile courts' responses to noncriminal youths led to diversion, deinstitutionalization, and decriminalization reforms that have removed much of the "soft" end of juvenile court clientele”(Field,1997,p75). The criminal courts have no jurisdiction to stand on pertaining to status offenders and the decriminalization of such offenses would free up the court system for the more serious offenses against society and help maintain the right to a speedy trial. The criminalization of status offenders predisposes the youth to the courts and sets precedence in their lives to be a criminal offender.
“... As these cases have reached the courts, they have raised Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues. The consequences are severe, and the learning outcomes for students who end up in the criminal justice system are not encouraging”(Price,1997, p550 ). The outcome of the status offender in being removed from the courts by the abolishing of the juvenile court system would be an overall improvement to the criminal justice system.
The juvenile justice system is currently modeling the criminal justice system in using due process, beyond a reasonable doubt', defense lawyers, prosecutors and plea bargaining. The result of abolishing the juvenile system would not create much difference in the court proceedings that we have in the juvenile system today. “ In the US, juvenile court proceedings have taken on many of the aspects of adult criminal courts” ( Kratcoski, Edelbacher, 2009, p12-13). The difference is in name such as being adjudicated or being convicted and the sealing of records. In some states the juveniles information is released to the public. The protection of confidential juvenile records could be maintained in the criminal court system if the state decides to uphold the precedence in said area.
The result of abolishing the juvenile justice system would be a positive direction for the United States. The juvenile would receive full rights guaranteed to the accused under the Bill of Rights. The status offenders would be removed from the criminal aspect of the court system, this action would free up criminal courts and reduce the tax burden on the citizen who pays for this system. The system we have now for the youth offenders is lacking in justice for the juveniles of our country. It is no longer concerned with the “best interest of the child” rather it is concerned more so with public opinion and the “get tough” agenda that leaves the accused child under judgment from all their current and previous actions without the protections and safeguards afforded to the accused adult. The abolishing of the juvenile justice system would correct this oversight of the past thirty years and help to actually protect the juveniles from the abuses of power. The abolishing of the juvenile justice system would result in the removal of the largest discriminatory act against a single group of people in the history of the United States - that is actively discriminating against the youth without regard for race, color, creed or gender. This discrimination is based on one sole factor – age.
References
Feld, B. (1997). Abolish the Juvenile Court: Youthfulness, Criminal Responsibility, and Sentencing Policy. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88(1), 68. Retrieved from Legal Collection database.
Frank, J. (1983). Neither Angels nor Thieves (Book Review). American Bar Association Journal, 69(1), 76. Retrieved from Legal Collection database
Gibeaut, J. (1999). A Jury Question. ABA Journal, 85(7), 24. Retrieved from Legal Collection Database
Kratcoski, P., & Edelbacher, M. (2009). Juvenile justice in Austria and the United States: similarities and differences. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 11(2), 203-216. doi:10.1350/ijps.2009.11.2.124.
Kurlychek, M., & Johnson, B. (2010). Juvenility and Punishment: Sentencing Juveniles In Adult Criminal Court. Criminology, 48(3), 725-758. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00200.x.
Price, P. (2009). When is A Police Officer an Officer of the Law?: The Status of Police Officers In Schools. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 99(2), 541-570. Retrieved from Legal Collection database.
Steward-Lindsey, S. (2006). Fulfilling the Promise of Kent: Fixing the Texas Juvenile Waiver Statute. American Journal of Criminal Law, 34(1), 109-126. Retrieved from Legal Collection database.
