prosecuting juveniles in adult criminal courts
The issue of prosecuting juveniles in adult criminal courts has brought controversial opinions on whether it is constitutional and ethically right. While some people argue that juveniles who commit serious crimes such as murder, drug trafficking, robbery, and burglary must be prosecuted in adult courts, others say that it is unethical. Each year, more than two hundred and fifty thousand juveniles are prosecuted in adult courts despite the existence of juvenile courts that are mandated to handle minor criminal cases. In US history, juveniles and adult cases were determined in the same courts before 1700, when juvenile courts were introduced to prosecute juvenile cases. In the US, minors are children below 18 years; however, it is sometimes assumed that children above the age of 16 years can be considered as adults. As a result, most juveniles above the age of 16 years are charged in adult criminal courts. Youths are still copying with mental development, and thus they should not be tried in an adult criminal law court, despite the criminal offense committed.
The United States Constitution is clear that people below the age of eighteen years should be treated as minors. The constitution establishes that children or juveniles are immature and irresponsible, and thus they are likely to make an impaired judgment when committing crimes. This is why the government sets broad restrictions for minors. First, juveniles are not allowed to drive because it is believed that psychologically, they are not fit to drive. Second, voting is an essential right in any country because it helps citizens to choose their leaders. However, in the US, people are only allowed to vote after they attain the age of eighteen years. These restrictions make it clear that juveniles should not be treated as adults in any way because they justify that youths make impaired judgments. It is also supported by the US constitution, which requires fairness in the trial, and thus, biasing juveniles who commit severe leads to an unfair trial. There is no reason why children who commit minor crimes can be assumed that they made impaired judgment while children of the same age who commit crimes labeled serious are believed to have an adult’s minds. This is the unfairness of the highest degree. Furthermore, it has been found that children commit crimes out of mischievousness rather than intent. However, in many criminal cases involving adults, the perpetrators have criminal intent, which is a key during prosecutions.
Rational choice theory is one of the essential approaches used to analyze crimes. According to the theory, perpetrators must be the benefits and risks associated with a particular crime before engaging in the actual commission of the crime. If the benefits out way the punishment, then the perpetrator goes ahead to commit the crime. This is common with adult perpetrators, but not for juveniles is different. Most minors do not have enough knowledge about particular crimes such as murder and drug trafficking until they are convicted for the same. For instance, a child may know that engaging in murder is wrong, but may not know that it attracts a life sentence. This explains why children readily confess to committing a crime and even giving the whole process on how they committed it, unlike for adults, who hardly accept serious charges in courts as they are aware of the punishment it may attract for the crimes. The fact that juveniles do not know the penalties associated with different crimes proves that their mental status is still low, and thus they cannot make appropriate judgments.
Sociological studies argue that the environment plays an essential role in children committing a crime. For instance, children who grow up in violent environments have high chances of turning violent, since it’s a way of adapting to the environment. Also, studies have concluded that children who are brought up in drug trafficking and usage environment are likely to engage in drug crimes. On the other hand, psychologists argue that in early development stages, juveniles significantly depend on the environment for learning, and thus growing up in crime zoned area increases the chances of engaging in crimes. Prosecuting juveniles in juvenile courts and sentencing in juvenile prisons enables the minors to change their behaviors and become law-abiding citizens. There are many interventions in juvenile prisons that contribute to reform. Juvenile undergo a lot of counseling, which is an essential strategy for improving. These significant interventions may be unavailable in adult criminal prisons. Sentencing juveniles in illegal adult prisons complicates the matter because the crime environment has not changed, as they are interacting with real criminals. Also, considering that they are in the process of learning, the adult criminal may further lure them into further crimes by telling them the benefits of crimes. As a result, the sociological and psychological factors justify that juveniles should not be tried in adult criminal courts.
The main aim of prosecuting juveniles in adult courts is to infringe harsh punishments that help deter them from future crimes. It is the high time that the criminal justice system examines if it has been effective. Various studies have concluded that this strategy does not help as there are many cases of juveniles who were tried in adult courts who were rearrested for similar or different criminal offenses. A study conducted by the School of law, University of California, found that there was minimal or no deterrence of juveniles who were tried as adults. The report claimed that 82 percent of minors charged as adults were rearrested for criminal offenses. This proves that the goals of prosecuting children as adults are not achieved, making the whole process useless. One essential that contributes to this is sentencing minors with conscious adult criminals. As observed in the last paragraph, the environment plays a crucial role in juvenile delinquency. When they are jailed in the same context as adult criminals, the situation may not have changed. The adult criminals are more likely to influence their thinking about crime. As most adult criminals engage in crimes for passion, they are likely to feed minors, whose cognitive is still growing on the benefits of participating in a crime. This increases their chances of committing crimes once they are released.
Trying minors in adult criminal courts violate the Eighth Amendment of the US constitution. The Amendment states that every individual is protected from receiving unusual and cruel punishment. Trying juveniles in the adult criminal justice system can be treated as cruelty. The adult criminal justice system differs significantly from the juvenile justice system in terms of punishment and prison interventions. Second, allowing the adult criminal justice system to handle young criminals undermines the power of the juvenile criminal justice system, as outlined in the US constitution. Various cases have ruled juvenile prosecution as adults unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared that sentencing children below the age of 17 years for a sentence without an option of parole is illegal in the Miller v. Alabama case in 2012. In another example, Roper v. Simmons in 2005, the court ruled out that juveniles should not be punished through execution, because it is unconstitutional. Since the Supreme Court is the final decision maker, the ruling on Miller v. Alabama proved that prosecuting children as adults is illegal, as it leads to unusual punishment.
Lastly, trying children in adult cases and then jailing them in adult prisons is unethical and destructive. There are many cases in which juveniles who are imprisoned in adult prisons have been mistreated by the adult prisoners. According to studies, youths jailed in adult prisons have five times higher chances of being sexually abused by the adult than juveniles incarcerated in juvenile correctional centers. Even more, cases go unreported as the older prisoners threaten them. Due to the assaults, youths are likely to go through stress and depression, which affects their psychology.
In conclusion, I believe the role of prosecuting juveniles should remain under the juvenile criminal justice system and not be treated as adults. The American constitution supports that children are irresponsible and immature, and as a result, they make unreasonable decisions. This is supported by the fact that children quickly confess in courts, even when the crimes carry heavy punishment. Lastly, prosecuting juveniles as adults violates the Eighth Amendment and also leads to assaults when they are jailed with adults.