Criminal Justice: Should Juveniles Be Treated as Adults?

By legal definition, a delinquent is a juvenile that commits a crime that if committed by an adult, would be punishable by prosecution in criminal court. By social definition, a delinquent is merely a troublemaker. This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system; how it evolved and why, as well as argue the topic of whether or not juveniles should be treated as adults.

For much of time, young children were not granted any form of legal status away from their parents, and youths were held accountable for their actions just as adults were. These two main factors, as well as some others, led to the development of the first American juvenile courts. English law was incorporated into this new system, over ruling the original Roman law. English law stated that children under the age of seven were incompetent of forming criminal intent. Therefore, if they did something that would have normally been considered a crime, it wasn't. Children ages seven to fourteen were presumed incapable of forming criminal intent, but if the state could gather enough evidence to convince a jury, then so be it. After reaching the age of fourteen, a juvenile was considered capable of forming criminal intent, and if they committed a crime, were treated the same as adults were. Because of the harshness of this, a new court specifically for juveniles was created in 1899 (Morse 1997).

This court, located in Chicago, Illinois, wasn't concerned with guilt or innocence and punishment repercussions, but more with treating the child through therapy. To help with making the child feel comfortable, hearings were confidential - no names were reported to the media and no one was allowed in unless directly involved with the case, court was informal - there were no step-by-step legal procedures that must be followed as well as no judge's bench as there is today, and hearings were non-adversarial - there were no lawyers present to represent either side. The main focus was compassion and grace, as well as a different level of accountability for children that adults.

Even so, this court was not the only development in society focused on helping juveniles. There were many other important creations that led up to the founding of this court in 1899. During the Jacksonian Era (1820s to 1850s), Thomas Eddy and John Griscom led the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism. They theorized that juveniles were committing criminal acts because they were very poor and living in poverty. After changing their name to the Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents in 1824, they established the first house of refuge in 1825. This establishment emphasized hard work and discipline. As a result, the juveniles were given an indeterminate sentence, as opposed to the fixed length if they were in adult criminal court.

During the Victorian Era (1850s to 1890s) "child savers" emerged. They focused mainly on changing the ways of the child to save them from "depraved and criminal lives" (Mays & Winfree Jr. 2000:219). To help do this, reformatories, also known as reform schools, were created. Here adults and juveniles must be separated, juveniles were imprisoned for their own good and protection, implementing military drill, constant supervision and physical exercise prevented idleness, and indeterminate sentences were produced.

During the Progressive Era (1880s to 1920s) there was much semblance to when the house of refuge was in order. The newly implemented juvenile court led the way for the creation of government run training schools. It was here that juveniles were taught vocational skills and realistic education to help them get back on their feet and back into society once their sentence was completed.

In today's society there are several issues facing the juvenile court. For example, many "juvenile court judges may not be held in the same esteem as their criminal court counterparts", the juvenile court has often been referred to as "kiddie court", implying that the offenders are simply given a "slap on the wrist" or warning for the crime they committed. This is not thought to be sufficient enough to prevent future re-occurrences (Mays & Winfree Jr. 2000).

Based on the view that "children are different" or "children cannot have criminal intent or responsibility", this feeling has dramatically decreased over the past few years. As a result, a "get tough" approach is being incorporated in the juvenile system. Currently there is a hypothesis that by holding juveniles responsible for the behavior, there will be a more beneficial outcome than by just "treating" them. This also sends the message that if juveniles commit adult crimes, then they will be treated as adults. However, the hypothesis for this idea has yet to be proven (Vito, G. F. et al. 1998).

In 1966, Kent vs. United States. 383 U.S. 541 was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court had ever heard a case regarding a juvenile. In more recent attempts to reform the juvenile justice system, the focus has been changed to making it easier to try kids as adults. In many states, the juvenile code is a "mirror image" of the adult penal code (Humes 1996). The main question is: Should juveniles be tried and sentenced as adults in criminal court, and if so, at what age? This question has originated as a result of the growing discontent with the traditional treatment within the juvenile system. There are differing opinions on this issue, all with legitimate arguments, making it harder for a decision to be made.

Some people express dissatisfaction with the current juvenile justice system being designed to serve the best intentions of the child and the idea of rehabilitation rather than punishment. There hasn't been much research in the area of the impact that the laws making it easier to try children as adults have had. It's obvious that the current "get tough" philosophy isn't working, because there is little or no effect on the rate of juvenile crime. There is no one person to blame, but some responsibility must be linked back to those who work in the juvenile justice system - judges, lawyers, prosecutors as well as the legislatures who construct the guidelines that must be followed. In the past 10 years, almost every state has passed laws or made amendments to current legislature to make it easier to prosecute and sentence juveniles as adults. In 1994 various state legislatures introduced over 700 bills to "move troubled youngsters from specialized juvenile facilities to adult prisons" (Mays & Winfree Jr. 2000:367). Creators of these tougher policies say that they are fed up with a system that offers a little more than a slap on the wrist to juveniles who commit serious crimes. Some even question as to whether or not repeat offenders should be rehabilitated. Juvenile court judges agree that the decision as to which kids to treat as adults and which to treat as kids is very difficult (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/etc/synopsis.html). Studies show that trying juveniles in adult court may actually result in a higher re-offender rate. This is because a large number of the juveniles sent through adult court are returned to the community shortly after conviction for several reasons. First of all most of them are first time offenders, and often commit an offense of minor nature. Statistics also show that there is a higher probability of juvenile court taking some form of action than adult criminal court (Geraghty & Drizin 1999).

There is no easy solution to the problems and violence that are being created by today's youth. Much of the recent legislative action taken against juvenile crime is a reaction to the public opinion that is fueled mainly by a large amount of (sometimes disproportionate) media coverage. Youths who offend at a younger age are more likely to become adult career criminals than those individuals who commit their first act during adolescence (or later). Many juvenile delinquents are often labeled as a result of a poor decision they made once in their lifetime. Though most high-risk juvenile offenders don't remain high-risk for long, this label remains with them through their entire life. With this in mind, many researchers think that the adult system is an irrational option for these adolescents, and may in the long run, lead to a longer period of delinquency. Back some 100 years ago, the juvenile system was established and created with the concept that children are quite different from adults, developmentally, intellectually and physically (Scott & Grisso 1997).

When in adult court the conviction rate is commonly lower for juveniles than if they were in family or juvenile courts, as well as the fact that charges are often "plea bargained" down in seriousness. "Punishment is less swift through adult processing than in juvenile processing," is the thought of some (Bender & Leone 1997:183). Another reason that juveniles shouldn't be put through the adult system is the level of violence and abuse within the jail. Studies show that juveniles in adult institutions are 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by guards, and half as likely to be attacked with a weapon than if they were placed in a juvenile institution (Bender & Leone 1997). Having said all this there are still circumstances that call for a juvenile to be treated as an adult. When this is necessary, usually as a last resort, a very careful, objective, and rational selection must be used to determine who these individuals are. Even then, they must be placed in safe and humane establishments where they are treated as human equals. Many of those against the idea of trying juveniles as adults believe that "Once these children realize what they're doing is harmful to their health, they will abandon it, just as many smokers gave up smoking" (Devine 1996:162).

On the other hand, it is thought by some that the more violent the crime is, the more a punishment (rather than rehabilitation) should be implemented. Bradley O'Leary feels that "...all violent juveniles should be tried in adult court and should be subject to adult sentences" (Bender & Leone 1997:175). When youths commit "adult" offenses there is much pressure from the general public to treat them like adults. Delinquency is not as large a threat as we sometimes make it out to be, but it seems like that because there is always the demand for even more action to be taken against these children. It is true that the juvenile system was created with the juveniles' best interest at hand, but back then, they were committing minor offenses; today they are felonies. "Juveniles account for almost half of the arrests for serious crimes in the United States today" (Howell 1997:31). In a sense, the juvenile justice is failing to protect society, because the more dangerous delinquents aren't being moved to the adult system.

There are some changes that need to be made in order to help maintain and better the juvenile justice system. Violent offenders should be separated from other non-violent juveniles and prosecutors should have the discretion to transfer younger juveniles who commit serious adult crimes to adult court; Juvenile confidentiality should be limited. Society needs to be able to identify the juveniles who have a record of committing serious crimes, as well as what the repercussions were. Deliver real rehabilitation. The present juvenile system allows for murderers and truants to go through the same exact procedures. Make juveniles and their parents accountable for their actions. The most important step is to intervene early in life to prevent violence later.

The important thing to remember is that society has a duty to punish offenders, regardless of their age, not to rehabilitate them. They should serve time like adults and even face the ultimate solution for violent offenders, no matter what age. We need to send a message out to adults and children alike: "Mess around with the law and you are going to spend time in jail, and jail life ain't pretty" (Jensen & Rojek 1998:451). The main point is: You do the crime, you do the time.

The juvenile court system that was created in the late 1800s and early 1900s was primarily focused on who the child was rather than what the child had done. Even today after a variety of changes, the court is still trying to be all things for all people. It will continue to be this way, as well as imply that the failure to be all things to all people will cause many (inside and outside the system) to continue expressing a dissatisfaction with the juvenile justice system and its actions.

Nationwide there has been a trend of decreasing the age at which one is considered to be a juvenile. This illustrates a punitive attitude for more serious juvenile offenders while there is a less coercive attitude being used for non-delinquent children. However, some still believe that the juvenile system is in great need of a major overhaul. Starting with a new definition of delinquency as a public health issue and ending with treating the whole child, not just the act of delinquency. These new changes will have to be coupled with a lack of monetary and staff resources.

Good people can cause a bad system to work. Regardless of however many great policies are crafted or how much structural organization is put into practice, without the interest of those people working within this system nothing will ever change.

After researching both side of the argument, I have come to the conclusion that I am thankful that I am not directly involved in making this decision everyday. I feel that juveniles should be treated as juveniles all the time, or juveniles should be treated as adults all the time. I believe that there are exceptions to the rules, but also that rules should be made and set. In this case, "you can't have your cake and eat it too" (as the saying goes). I guess that my decision is to leave things as they are in society now and let the pieces fall as they may, making changes along the way, to better the situation.