Criminal Law - the Juvenile Delinquency Factor

Criminal law is a very diverse and time consuming topic to discuss. In order to effectively discuss criminal law you need to narrow your focus down to a single topic within the field. Scholars and legal experts throughout history have debated many of the aspects of criminal law and as a result much needed changes have been made. There has by no means been an absence of the juvenile factor in these debates. In fact from our earliest established courts juveniles were present both as witnesses and defendants. The role that juveniles play in the courts system of today has evolved over a very long period of time. Of course before you can discuss the legal aspect of juvenile's you have to understand how society's views have changed as well. This paper will discuss the following in attempt to explain how juvenile justice has impacted the arena of criminal law:

1. The role of juveniles over time within society and the criminal justice system.

2. The current status of juvenile offenders within the criminal justice system.

3. Suggested changes for juveniles within the criminal justice system.

The role of juveniles over time within society and the criminal justice system

Treating children as a distinct social group with special needs and behavior is a relatively new concept (Siegle & Welsh, 2008). The family unit has evolved from a predominantly paternalistic entity, meaning the father exercised complete control, into an amalgam of so many different structures that is nearly impossible to discern specific family types. During the evolution of the family unit the role of youth drastically changed. During the middle ages children were forced to take on adult roles early in life. This resulted in children being treated as adults if they were found to have violated the law. Eventually in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the family structure began to change. Families became less impersonal and as a side effect society's view on youth changed as well. With the establishment of the English Poor Laws, the apprenticeship movement and the chancery courts young people started to be recognized as a specific demographic that required a different set of rules. Of course based on the standards of today what passed as legal action then would be considered child abuse. If a child was considered disobedient or delinquent beatings were thought to be the best course action to correct their behavior. Until the twentieth century, little distinction was made between adult and juvenile offenders. Although judges considered the age of an offender when deciding on punishment, both adults and juveniles were eligible for prison, corporal punishment, and even the death penalty (Siegel & Welsh, 2008). Civil groups known as child savers formed in major cities across the United States and acted as advocates for juveniles as a separate demographic. These groups attributed delinquent behavior to the social structure theory. This theory holds that social and economic forces operating in lower-class areas push many of their residents into criminal behavior (Siegel, 2006). The child savers views were further fueled by the fact that the majority of young people violating the law were from the lower-classes. Although members of both middle and upper-classes engaged in delinquent and criminal activity they are considered to be less of a threat to the general public. While it was not until the twentieth century that juveniles were recognized as a distinct group within the criminal justice system attempts were made early on to give juveniles rights. The first juvenile court in this country was established in Illinois under an 1899 act that provided that the child offender was not to be punished in a criminal sense, but was to be provided treatment under the control of the juvenile court (Carlson, 2005). Following the passing of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act other states followed suit so that today there is legislation in every American jurisdiction. Although steps were taken in every jurisdiction in our country to clarify the status of juvenile offenders it was not until the 1967 that the U.S. Supreme Court set forth clear guidelines for the processing of juveniles. In In re Gault the Supreme Court established that juvenile offenders were entitled to the following constitutional protections: the right to counsel, the right to notice prior to delinquency proceedings, the right to refrain from testifying, the right to confront their accuser, the right to jury trials in the case of serious juvenile offenses, the right to Miranda, the confidentially of records, burden of proof, protection from double jeopardy, and lastly the right to bail.

The current status of juvenile offenders within the criminal justice system

Despite the many changes to the criminal justice system in this country regarding juvenile offenders there still has not been any clearly defined guidelines for prosecution. There have been many instances where juvenile offenders have been tried as adults in extreme cases however; this decision is left up to the state in which the crime took place. If a juvenile is to be tried as an adult the decision is made in one three ways depending on the jurisdiction the crime occurred in. Under the concurrent jurisdiction method a prosecutor has the discretion of filing charges in either juvenile or criminal court. Another method is known was statutory exclusion. More specifically certain offenses are automatically excluded from juvenile court. Lastly there is the judicial waiver method. In this instance a hearing is held in front of a juvenile court judge. It is then up to the judge to determine whether jurisdiction should be waived and the case transferred to criminal court. Of the three methods statutory exclusion accounts for the largest number of juveniles tried as adults in this country (Siegel & Welsh, 2008). In cases where a juvenile is tried as an adult there has been little evidence to show that the age of the offender is considered when handing down sentences. As a result most juvenile justice experts oppose judicial waivers. Their primary concern is that juvenile offenders will be labeled as criminal so early on in life that they will not be afforded the opportunities for reform that are necessary to function in society. Additionally there is a fear that juvenile offenders incarcerated in adult institutions will only become better criminals. Their exposure to career offenders is believed to increase the recidivism rate for their criminal behavior. For the offenders whose cases are not transferred to the criminal court, there is little difference in the process of determining guilt or innocence. The terminology used may differ however the same basic steps are utilized in the juvenile court system. If a case cannot be decided during the pretrial stage an adjudication hearing is held. This is in a sense a criminal trial. All the rules of evidence apply to this hearing so the juvenile offender is protected against hearsay. At the close of the adjudication hearing there is a key difference between it and a criminal trial. The presiding judge is required to make a factual finding on the legal issues and evidence (Peak, 2007). In criminal court the finding is a prelude to reaching a verdict where as in the juvenile court the judge's finding is the verdict. Generally the judge resolves the case in one of three ways. The decision can made that the juvenile is not delinquent or in need of supervision, that the juvenile is delinquent and in need of supervision of some form, or that there is insufficient evidence to determine the offender's legal status. In the event that a juvenile is determined to be delinquent the judge has a wide variety options available to him. Dispositions range from probation to institutionalization. Traditionally jurisdictions have used the indeterminate sentence in juvenile cases. What this means is that it is up to the state department of juvenile corrections until correctional authorities consider the youth ready to return to society or until the offender reaches legal majority (Siegel & Welsh, 2008).

Suggested changes for juveniles within the criminal justice system

The current system for processing juvenile offenders has evolved greatly in the centuries since humans gathered into organized groups. While there are many positives to how juvenile offenders are tried and sentenced there is always room for improvement. There have been some interesting concepts being employed in a few states around the country that should expanded further. In many juvenile jurisdictions peer courts have been used in low risk property and drug related cases. These peer courts have been shown to provide the proper utilization of peer pressure. Another concept that has been put into use is known as blending sentences. Many states have created blended sentencing structures for cases involving serious offenses. This concept is designed to impose both juvenile dispositions and adult criminal sentences concurrently. The idea behind this is that punishment and accountability as well as rehabilitation are equally important in juvenile justice policy (Siegle & Welsh, 2008). When both sentences are imposed the court suspends the adult sanction. If the juvenile offender fails to adhere to the conditions of the juvenile disposition then it is vacated and the adult sentence is carried out. In addition to the concepts discussed above there are other changes in store for the criminal justice system regarding juvenile offenders. The ever changing family units of today also pose a challenge. Courts will no longer be hearing cases revolving around the traditional family unit. Same sex marriages as well as emancipated youth will also impact how juvenile offenders are dealt with in the justice system. Some steps have been taken to standardize guidelines for processing juvenile offenders more can be done. If clear cut standards can be set for adult sentencing then the same can be done for juvenile offenders. Additionally the federal government should step up and establish rules for transferring cases from juvenile court to adult jurisdictions. This does not mean that juvenile courts are not obsolete. Juvenile court judges are far more experienced in juvenile justice and have a greater understanding of the unique developmental and mental health needs and deficits of juveniles (Carlson, 2005). In conclusion our current system of processing juveniles does work but as always advancements can be made to streamline our handling of this unique and challenging group of offenders.

References

Carlson, Ronald C. (2005). Criminal Justice Procedure. LexisNexis

Peak, Kenneth J. (2007). Justice Administration: Police, Courts, and Corrections Management.

New Jersey. Pearson Prentice Hall

Siegel, Larry J. (2006). Criminology. California. Thomas Wadsworth

Siegel, Larry J. & Welsh, Brandon C. (2008). Juvenile Delinquency: The Core. California: Thomson Wadsworth