Chin 1

"Juvenile Offenders or Adult Criminals?”

Wei Chin

Per.6

22 May 2008

English 1 H

Moran
 Chin 2

Wei Chin

English 1 H

Moran

12 May 2008

Juvenile Offenders or Adult Criminals?

In 1899, Illinois passed the Juvenile Court Act, which established the nation’s first

juvenile court. It was founded on three principles: juveniles are not ready to be held

accountable for their actions, are not yet fully developed, and can rehabilitate easier than

adults. Now, in all but three states in the United States, anyone charged with committing a

criminal act before his or her 18th birthday is on average, is considered a juvenile offender.

More than ever, states and countries worldwide have begun to question the reliability of the

juvenile court. The juvenile court system should be abolished, the system of punishment is

not only too unrestricted on the juvenile offenders, but it is also inefficient in responding to

juvenile crime and violence.

The aim of creating a juvenile court for children was not only for it to differ from that

of the criminal court, but for the way of these differences manifested themselves was to be

unique and individualized. Procedure was to be kept in a way as to prevent the child from

being tried and treated like a criminal. The original court permitted jury trials under no

circumstances, allowed no public trials, and allowed the judge to represent both parties of the

law. The informality of the court allowed individual circumstances surrounding each case to

be identified and considered by judges when ruling. The transformation of the juvenile

jurisdiction began in the late 1960’s with cases by the Supreme Court granting due process

rights to juveniles where, becoming eerily similar to criminal courts, juvenile transfers were
 Chin 3

established such that the most serious young offenders could be tried as adults. The American

judicial system and the treatment of juvenile offenders have undergone considerable changes

in the past 30 years. With the rising levels of juvenile crime combined with media discourse,

an increase in public fear and a ‘get tough’ government approach to crime has emerged. The

notion of “adult time for adult crime” has brought significant changes in the juvenile justice

system and its philosophy for dealing with adolescents, ultimately resulting in an increasing

number of juveniles being transferred and sentenced in the adult court system. It is time to

consider whether or not this long process is needed, whether or not the entire juvenile

division of the court should be abolished (Bakken 1).

"In many jurisdictions, [teenagers] commit as many as 10 to 15 serious crimes before

anything is done to them. It is amazing how ancient, archaic, and broken down the juvenile

justice system is." (Senator Peter Domenici, Butts, Harrell 9). For example, after bashing a

13 year old friend in the head, knocking her unconscious, a 14 year old is in custody at the

Yavapai County Juvenile Detention Center on charges of aggravated assault, disorderly

conduct and interference with an educational institution (Sanchez 1). Instead of sending her

where she needs to go, they decide to send her to a mere detention. This will do nothing to

confront the problems. Furthermore, Angelica Marruy states:

The reason that it seems inefficient is because some of the juvies have been in

and out of the system so much that there is no fear. I worked JD for 5 yrs back

and it became almost a "status" thing for some of these kids to get arrested and

put back in. They would walk thru the door and half the kids would cheer and

back slap the kid like he/she was "home". They need to keep them locked in

cells and only let out at certain periods of the day for exercise and meals. Stop
 Chin 4

making it Home-away-from-home. The laws on how to punish them may be

lax, but the incarceration shouldn't be a cake walk. (Marruy 2).

Like the author mentioned, juvenile court is so easy to get through, it wasn’t even considered

a punishment. If this is how the juveniles are being treated, isn’t it the same as house arrest?

Edward Humes, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, published a non-fiction novel

titled, No Matter How Loud I Shout: A Year in the Life of Juvenile Court. In this novel, he

introduced us to a 13 year old boy, Richard Perez, who was charged with car theft,

misbehavior in school, truancy, and incorrigibility. Settling his case, Richard busted curfew,

smoked marijuana, and continued running with his gang. When he didn’t show up to school

for at least a month, his parole officer drove to his address, which was discovered to be

fictitious; no one had bothered to check it before he was released. After being brought back

to court a month later, he was again went home with a probation, followed by 3 arrests, all of

which he was released from custody. Richard Perez walked into a restaurant in the Lynwood

area of L.A. County, and approached a 17 year old boy. When asked what gang the boy was

in and getting no answer, Richard pulled out a gun and shot the boy to death. At the hearing

to determine his fitness to be tried as a juvenile or adult, Richard’s lack of remorse and utter

contempt for a system that had never held him accountable was obvious. (Humes 3). Edward

Humes points out the attack by Perez could have been avoided had the court paid close

enough attention to the small cases, instead of only the violent and serious cases. If that is not

enough to prove the insufficiency, in 1995, U.S. juvenile courts handled more than 1.7

million cases involving delinquency charges (Sickmund, 1997). “Nearly half (45%) were

handled without formal court action. In cases involving youth under age 13, 73% of all

delinquency referrals ended with the youth receiving no formal services” (Snyder et al.,
 Chin 5

1997). If this is the case, kids may believe that crimes they committed were deemed

acceptable, making it easy to be repeated or worsened, like drug usage.

The preservationists want to maintain the juvenile court as a non-criminal, quasi-civil

court with exclusive jurisdiction over the young offenders. They believe the juveniles are

different from adults, and the due process requirements give the juveniles a wider chance of

intervention. However, the jurisdiction over the young offenders was dubious to start with.

Juvenile court will never provide enough rehabilitative chances as it was envisioned, “57%

of first time juvenile offenders never come back. The other 43% needs to be focused on, but

there is nothing that is done; children are sacrificed” (Humes 41). This is too big of a

number, if the 43% of the juvenile offenders are on the streets; the chances of getting

attacked are just too big a risk. Instead of concentrating on the small, minor crimes, the

officials concentrate on the major cases, such as rape and 1st degree murder. In this matter,

the smaller delinquents can easily turn into hard-time crocks; they won’t be punished until

it’s too late. Furthermore, “The due process is no longer acceptable given its new emphasis

on just deserts” (Butts, Harrell 6). If this is the case, we do not have a need for the juvenile

court system; it’s the same as the adult criminal court sysyem.

Some argue that without juvenile court, the adult court system would hurt the ones

that do not have a fully developed mind. Most of the juvenile offenders have gone through a

rough time growing up, but juvenile court is not required for their benefit. Some states have

created "family courts" to handle all family matters, including abuse and neglect, divorce and

custody disputes. Abolition of the juvenile court would have no impact on the viability of

family courts. They would simply no longer handle criminal law violations by minors.

Preservationists from all over the country would also argue that adult prison is not the ideal
 Chin 6

place for someone not yet an adult; after all, prison is a place where many believe to be hell.

Abolition of the juvenile court would not require that all young offenders be sent to adult

prison. Many states already operate separate correctional facilities for young adults (under

age 21, under 23, etc.). There is not enough reason to suggest that juvenile should not belong

to the adult court system; after all, the division is just a waste of money and time on the

state’s part. The use of juvenile courts in Arizona was ended by the “Stop Juvenile Crime

Initiative” and was endorsed by 63% of Arizona voters. According to a NBC New-Wall

Street Journal poll, two thirds of Americans think juveniles under the age of 13 who commit

murder should be tried as adults (Butts, Harrell 2). In a survey conducted by Sam Houston

State University, a majority of the public favored sentencing many young offenders in adult

court rather than in juvenile court. Nearly all of the respondents (87%) favored adult

sentences for juveniles charged with serious violent crimes, and 69% favored adult court

sentences for drug sellers, and 63% for serious property offenders (Maguire 155).

The United States has many rights for juveniles; but the juvenile court should not be

on the list as one of them. States and countries have already begun to abolish this useless

system that only serves to waste time and money. Juveniles are constantly being undermined

by the court, and it is time to change it all. Those that seem silly and inappropriate will be

excused in the adult courts, while crimes that are more acceptable will be charged

accordingly, instead of wastefully. Currently, only the most serious and violent are

transferred to adult court, called a waiver or transfer. We have taken the first steps, it is now

time to complete the process of abolishing this wasteful and inefficient system.
 Chin 7

Work Cited

Bakken, Nicholas. "YOU DO THE CRIME, YOU DO THE TIME". University of Delaware. 22

April 2008 <http://www.ifpo.org/articlebank/Bakken_Juvenile_Justice.pdf>.

Butts, Harrell, "Delinquents or Criminals?". 12 May 2008

<http://www.urban.org/publications/307452.html>.

Humes, Edward. "No Matter How Loud I Shout". 12 May 2008

<http://www.edwardhumes.com/articles/juv_senate.shtml>.

Maguire, Kathleen. Sourcebook of Criminal justice statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 22 April 2008

<http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook>

Marruy, Angelica. "Should juvenile courts be abolished?". 12 May 2008

<http://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylc=X3oDMTE1aThkdWZ2BF9TAzIxMTUDA>

Sanchez, Jesse. "Teen beats classmate with chair in taped attack". 12 May 2008.

<http://current.com/items/88906812_teen_beats_classmate_with_chair_in_taped_attack>

Sickmund, Melissa. . "Offenders in Juvenile Court". 12 May 2008

<http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/93868.pdf>.