Starting with In re Gault in 1967, the subject of whether or not juveniles should be treated like adults when it comes to the justice system has been a controversial one. Up until the late 60s, juveniles were not even given the same rights when charged as adults. While many people agree with the notion that if a juvenile commits a serious crime they should be charged accordingly, there are equally as many who disagree with it. The primary argument used by those who disagree is whether it is considered ethical to hold a child, who is still developing mentally, to the standards of a fully grown adult. To try and find a solution to this complex problem, numerous case studies have been done, to show if harsh adult punishment, or more rehabilitative methods, are more effective in helping troubled youth.
Body
As I was researching the topic of juveniles being treated like adults in the criminal justice system, I discovered that a lot of people are conflicted about what to do regarding this issue. As a hypothetical scenario, does a 13-year-old boy, deserve the same type of severe punishment as an adult man for committing a violent crime? There is a thin line between the answer. One group of people says yes. Someone who is 13, is capable of understanding when they are causing physical harm to someone. Another group, on the other hand, would disagree with this (Mears, 2015). They might argue that at 13, the person is still a child. Research has shown that the human brain continues growing and maturing up until the age of 25. So, throwing a child away into a prison cell, and forcing them to associate with adult criminals, might prove to be counterproductive. Instead, society should aim to explore more rehabilitative methods.
In the United States, we tend to have an extreme fear of crime. Meaning, American citizens are mostly afraid of being victimized by a serious crime. This in turn motivates a lot of people to advocate for juveniles to be severely punished for crimes that are usually not that serious (Welch, 2019). However, to put their minds at ease, in terms of becoming future victims of crimes, the only way they know how to express themselves, is by encouraging juveniles to be locked up, where they have no chance of hurting anybody. Even though quite a few people support the tough approach to dealing with juveniles, their rationale is reasonable. With the majority of people saying that the punishment should match the crime committed. Adults should know better regardless of the situation, but if for example, a juvenile commits several acts of petty theft there is no need for them to spend time in jail. It would be more productive for them to pay a hefty fine, and to learn the consequences of stealing.
A common argument that is used by people who support harsh punishments for juveniles, is the fact that it is good at deterrence. Meaning, it will deter the juvenile who committed the crime from committing future crimes, and in addition, it will deter fellow juveniles who plan on committing a crime. These people use the rationale that says if the peers of juveniles who committed a crime are given a light sentence of something like community service, then they will not take things seriously, because they know that they can get away with it, with little to no consequences. Also, the concept of recidivism is one that people take into consideration. According to the Pew Research Center, the United States has one of the highest recidivism rates for prisoners. The national average for people who re-offend once they are released from prison is roughly 43%. Therefore, some might look at these statistics, and say that perhaps the prisoners were not given a harsh enough sentence. Meaning, that if juveniles are treated harshly for their first offense, the likelihood of them getting into trouble again, will significantly diminish.
Another frequent argument that is used by people who support tough punishments for juveniles, is the fact that jail time will forcibly remove the juvenile from their negative environmental situation. Or in other words, if the child who committed a crime lives in an environment where the parents are not involved or are engaging in illegal behavior themselves, separating them from this will yield positive results. However, research shows that just putting people in jail, rarely ever solves the problem. Especially because when a child is put in jail, and everyone around them is telling them that they are a bad person, rather than emphasizing the fact that they did something bad, this can negatively affect a child’s perception of themselves. Juveniles, even into their late teens, are still very impressionable, and they will start to believe what is being said. They start to think that “Yes, I am a bad person, and that is why I am in jail”. Therefore, this mindset can encourage them to take on the role of being an actual criminal, when in reality, they simply made a mistake.
One final argument that I see being used quite often in the realm of people who believe that juveniles should be treated like adults in the justice system, is the fact that juries would be involved. In juvenile cases, in most instances, minors do not have the right to trial by jury. In adult cases, this is not an option. Therefore, people say that the community’s opinion should be taken into consideration when punishment is being assigned to somebody. I would imagine that some people might also struggle with the idea that the judge is being given full control, to make whatever decision they would like, without the possibility of a dissenting opinion. While they do take an oath to be completely neutral and approach every case from an individual standpoint, judges are still human beings. Therefore, they carry bias with them. If for some reason they do not like the juvenile, or the crime committed reminds them of something that happened in their personal life, they might be more inclined to hand out a stricter punishment.
In terms of the people who disagree with juveniles being treated like adults in the justice system, the most important argument that they make is the level of mental maturity. They also say that context matters a lot. For example, if a 20-year-old takes his parent’s gun, and accidentally ends up shooting somebody in the process, he will face a strict punishment, because, at his age, he should know better. However, when you replace the 20-year-old with a 10-year-old, who happens to find the gun, and accidentally shoots their younger sibling, the situation is completely different. Scientific research has shown that children do not understand the potential consequences that their actions might have. Or in other words, a child would not have the mental ability to say to themselves, “If I play around with this gun, there is a possibility that somebody could be seriously injured or even killed”.
In addition, a lot of research has been done on whether or not rehabilitation is more beneficial for juveniles, as opposed to jail time, and results show that this is true (Endrass, 2012). While not always the case with every situation, most often, children who commit crimes, are acting out, in the hope that they will get attention from somebody. I remember during one of our class periods when you told us the story of the young boy who was caught sexually assaulting his sister. When questioned, it was found out that his uncle was sexually abusing him. Because of scenarios like this, many people are vehemently against treating juveniles like adults in the justice system. There is the possibility of too many unknown factors that could be at play, which explains why the child is acting out and committing crimes. Putting a child in isolation does not get to the heart of the problem. Most juvenile offenders open up when talked to about the situation, and it helps aid in the emotional and psychological healing process.
Conclusion
Personally, after researching the pros and cons of juveniles being treated like adults in the justice system, I think that they should not be. Jails are dangerous not only from a physical standpoint but more importantly, from a psychological standpoint. Subjecting a child to those types of harsh conditions is not necessary. For 16 and 17 years old’s, I can sympathize with the argument that they should be treated harshly a little bit more. However, I think that anything below those ages is automatically a no. Having the experience of being locked up, has the potential to ruin a child’s life. Getting them professional help, and teaching them right from wrong is so much better in the long run. Keeping people in jail is extremely expensive, and they cannot contribute anything meaningful to society if they are trapped there. Rather than just throwing them away, letting them know that they matter, that people care about their well-being, and want to see them succeed in life, is so much more impactful in a positive way.
References
Mears, D., Pickett, J., & Mancini, C. (2015). Support for Balanced Juvenile Justice: Assessing Views About Youth, Rehabilitation, and Punishment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9234-5
Welch, K., Butler, L. F., & Gertz, M. (2019). Saving Children, Damning Adults? An Examination of Public Support for Juvenile Rehabilitation and Adult Punishment. Criminal Justice Review (Sage Publications), 44(4), 470–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016819833141
Endrass, J. (2012). The Efficacy of Deterrent and Punitive Measures. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 56(4), 335–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12445352