Justice For All
Juvenile Justice A system losing ground Anne Wade senseless to punish a juvenile who may not have the capacity to truly understand the harm they have caused.
T
here are several questions concerning juvenile offenders. Each of the questions come back to a very real issue, what do we, as a society, do with youth who refuse to obey laws? In medieval times, the incorrigible children could be executed. That penalty of executing Juveniles was finally outlawed in Roper v. Simmons (2005). A short version of the history of the treatment of juveniles shows vacillation between punishment and rehabilitation (Bernard, 1992). The current debate centers around the age of the juvenile (what defines a juvenile, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18), and how do we punish/rehabilitate/deter/ reintegrate the juvenile in our civilized society? Society certainly demands their “pound of flesh” when a juvenile offender has committed a serious offense harming a victim or victims. However, due to the age of the offender, society also has little desire to warehouse juvenile offenders for the rest of their lives.
Goshe (2013) noted the malleability of society’s concern for juveniles in society. No matter how liberal programs are to assist children “at risk” those are the programs that are cut first in a budgetary crisis. Goshe noted that even when funding is at its peak, social services still has to beg for more money to assist an ever increasing case of juveniles. This begs the question of how committed we are as a society to actually identifying and preventing juvenile’s from committing offenses in the first place. An argument can be made that juvenile offenders do not fully understand the nature of their crimes. They do not have fully developed moral systems and their brain is not as mature as their age would seem to suggest (Scott, 2006). While they understand at one level, they are breaking the law and some societal norms, they may not see consequences beyond the act itself (for themselves and others they have harmed). If that is the case, then it seems
Because of juveniles reduced ability to control themselves, lack of fully understanding the nature of their crime, and potentially delayed brain development, many advocate reduced sentencing for juvenile offenders (Brink, 2004). This argument of reduced sentencing, coupled with aggressive treatment for incarcerated juveniles seems to be the plan in many states. Depending on the degree of harm the juvenile has caused, it could be a risky plan that depends on juvenile services doing a stellar job providing needed services within a small window of time – the reduced time the juvenile is incarcerated versus and adult incarceration. Ultimately, there are no winners in the current juvenile system. Juveniles are treated differently in different states, some are punished others are given programs, and victims continue to suffer at the hands of their offender. All around, there are losers in the system. The juveniles who are incarcerated started life off “at risk” and their victims may or may not recover from the act against them.
No matter how liberal programs are to assist children “at risk” those are the programs that are cut first in a budgetary crisis.
Bernard, Thomas J. 1992. The Cycle of Juvenile Justice. New York: Oxford University Press. Brink, D. O. (2004). Immaturity, n ormative competence, and juvenile transfer: How (not) to punish minors for major crimes. Texas Law Review, 82 , 1555 Goshe, S. (2013). Malleable Mandates: Liberal Ideology and the Politics of Protection and Punishment in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Western Criminology Review, 14(1), 39-50. Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005) Scott, E. (2006). Adolescence and the regulation of youth crime. Temple Law Review,8, 337.
Second Chance Magazine - April 2019 | 9
