The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
Part 1
Introduction
The Act is mandated with preventing delinquency and also giving direction as regards the legal action taken against youths involved in crime. JJDP Act, in this case, deals with juveniles involved in crime. Whereas teen courts deal with first-time teen offenders engaged in petty crime, the juvenile system deals with teens involved in major offenses. These offenses include aggravated assault, robbery, murder, and drug and gang affiliation to name a few. The Act is important as it gives the direction as regards the court process as well as imprisonment. Juvenile protection is the primary mandate of the policy. The incarceration of juveniles in adult facilities is an issue that elicits debate. Even though the Act offers protection from such occurrences, youth can be jailed in an adult jail.
A juvenile can also be tried as an adult in certain instances (Department Of Justice Archives, 2020). Capital crimes such as murder by a juvenile would, for example, necessitate a juvenile being tried as an adult, for example. Being tried as an adult would translate to imprisonment in adult jail as well. It is interesting to note that youths commit significant crimes such as murder more than adults (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.). As such, the Act has particular mandates that it seeks to fulfill. These include; the removal of juveniles in adult jails (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, n.d.). Jailing of juveniles in adult jails increases the chances of physical and psychological abuse. The abuse is in contrast with the rehabilitation mandate of the correctional system as it does not rehabilitate. Suicide, for example, is likely among youths locked up in adult jails. Ethnic discrimination is yet another issue that the Act seeks to deal with in juvenile facilities (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, n.d.).
Part 2
Choice Theory
The choice theory is built on the premise that actions are a result of individual choices made. Juveniles, however, do not have the same cognitive ability as adults. It, therefore, means that juveniles cannot be held accountable for their actions without factoring in the flawed cognitive ability aspect. According to choice theory, the sentencing of juveniles in adult courts and jails is therefore justified. As such, the youth would be getting the deserved outcome as a result of the action taken. A murder case juvenile tried and jailed in an adult jail without the possibility of parole would be serving a sentence congruent with the offense.
An argument in favor of this action would conclude that the adult jailing would serve as a deterrent for other juveniles involved in major crime. However, based on the cognitive ability argument, such an action would not be right. It would, therefore, mean that a life sentence in an adult jail would not be the right action as it would not necessitate change. Choices have consequences in which case crime choices have legal consequences. However, having juveniles in adult jails does not encourage crime prevention since the result does not rehabilitate. It instead exposes youths to abuse. The abuse suffered aggravates the situation as suicide, for example, serves as a way out for the juvenile. The argument that punishment is the way to deal with crime is thus flawed in this regard.
Social Structure Theory
The theory is based on the premise that crime is as a result of the surrounding environment and not individual character. Based on the theory, juvenile offenders commit a crime based on the social aspect of their lives and not personal traits. An individual in a crime-prone environment, for example, is more likely to get involved in crime. A juvenile raised in an abusive home environment is also expected to get involved in crime, for example, aggravated assault. The involvement in crime would thus not be based on the personal character but the environment. In this regard, as long as society is flawed, crime will exist. Crime generally occurs at a higher rate in poor neighborhoods.
According to social structure theory, juvenile crime is based on societal functions as opposed to individual functions. Equating juvenile delinquency to social structure theory in this regard is justified. An unbalanced economic, social status means that the poor will always engage in crime to meet basic needs such as food. Having juveniles in adult jails and courts does not offer a solution as far as the social structure is concerned. As a result, the offender is not likely to rehabilitate as the system seeks to punish and not rehabilitate. Rehabilitation is more likely to achieve results as it changes the environment of the offender positively. A positive environment that has employment and education opportunities is more likely to have a positive impact on the offender, for example.
Trait Theory
The theory is based on the indication that action is based on individual traits. In this regard, crime is based on personal characteristics inherent in a person. The theory thus is of the premise that a juvenile delinquent commits a crime based on specific traits. Mental instability traits, for example, would, therefore, result in an individual being involved in criminal activities. Serial killers and rapists, for instance, commit crimes repeatedly based on a psychosis trait. As such, these offenders are not likely to change even if more lenient sentencing was instituted. It, therefore, supports the treating of juveniles as adults.
The offender is deemed to commit a crime based on negative traits in the individual that cannot be changed since the character is inherent and difficult to change. According to trait theory, the treatment of juveniles as adults is justified. Adult sentencing ensures that the offender gets the maximum penalty for the crime committed. An offender in this regard does not get any leniency. The treating of juveniles as adults, however, does not necessitate rehabilitation and encourages punishment. Punishment in this regard is the preferred outcome since restoration is deemed ineffective due to the inherent character of the offender.
Conflict Theory
The theory rides on the premise that conflict is inevitable due to inequitable distribution of resources. The unbalanced distribution of resources automatically goes hand in hand with the unequal distribution of power. A capitalist society contributes to crime. Capitalism increases a competitive streak that endears individuals to want more for selfish reasons. The constrained distribution of resources in this regard increases the likelihood of crime. According to conflict theory, the treatment of juveniles as adults is not justified as minors are deemed to be under the care of guardians. Juveniles get involved in crime to acquire the resources that the guardians fail to provide. As long as a need to acquire more resources and power exists, crime will continue to increase. As more resources become scarce, the more crime rate increases. Inversely the more resources an individual acquires, the more the individual seeks to amass. In this regard, juvenile crime is not likely to end. The more a juvenile gets involved in crime, the more one is likely to get involved in more crime to get more money, for example. Treating juveniles as adults is not likely to have any positive impact in this regard.
Part 3
Conclusion
Treating juveniles as adults does not support rehabilitation and instead supports punishment. Most cases in which juveniles are treated as adults involve major offenses and repeat offenses. Juveniles are considered to be aware of their actions unless a mental health condition is involved. Since most violent crime involves youth (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.), it, therefore, means that more juveniles are treated as adults. The fact that the more significant constituent of violent crime is youth is an indication that the treatment of minors as adults does not reduce or prevent crime. The different theories mentioned also impact juvenile treatment as adults differently. Some of the theories support, while others do not support the treatment of juveniles as adults. Conflict theory, for example, does not support the treatment of juveniles as adults. Trait theory, on the other hand, promotes juvenile treatment as adults.
Cases vary as regards violent crime, as does the motivation behind the crime. Dealing with juvenile cases should thus be based on an individual basis taking into consideration various factors. A murder case that is in self-defense, for example, should be handled the same way as murder that is premeditated. Treatment as an adult in the former scenario would not be necessary, whereas it would be necessary for the latter scenario. The different theories also come into play when dealing with juvenile delinquency. Punishment and rehabilitation are outcomes likely to be realized. Both results are necessary, based on the crime committed and the motivation behind the crime. Juveniles with a character that is difficult to change as regards crime may function better in a punishment oriented system. Juveniles likely to change with a change in the societal structure are more likely to benefit from a rehabilitative program on the other hand.
References
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d). Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) – Juvenile defendants.
Retrieved 6 February 2020, from https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=236
Coalition for Juvenile Justice. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act | CJJ.
Juvjustice.org. Retrieved 3 May 2020, from http://www.juvjustice.org/federal-policy/juvenile-justice-and-delinquency-prevention-act.
Department Of Justice Archives. (2020). 129. Conditions precedent to motion to transfer.
Retrieved 6 February 2020, from https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-129-conditions-precedent motion-transfer