Juvenile Justice: A Legal and Psychological Analysis of Whether Juveniles Should Be Tried as Adults

Abstract

Figuring out how to treat juveniles who commit serious crimes isn’t exactly straightforward. On one hand, some people think that if the crime is bad enough, the age shouldn’t matter; they should be held fully accountable. On the other hand, there’s a lot of research showing that children and teenagers aren’t yet fully developed, especially in their decision-making abilities. This paper examines both sides, delving into case law, psychology, and studies from India and the U.S. What it finds is that relying too heavily on punishment may not be as effective as people think. Helping juveniles reform could reduce the frequency of their future offenses. A justice system that balances punishment with understanding where kids are developmentally might be the smarter approach overall.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The question of whether juveniles should be tried and punished as adults has been a matter of debate for decades. How to treat young offenders is a difficult question with many shades of gray.

The development of a unique juvenile justice system over 100 years ago was aimed at rehabilitating young offenders rather than simply punishing them. However, the rising rate of juvenile delinquency drew public attention to the concerns regarding whether and how the juvenile justice system effectively managed adolescent offenders. This sparked debates on whether action should be taken or policies developed to deal with the emerging problem.

Some individuals are in favor of treating adolescents exactly like adult offenders, and thus argue that teenagers must be punished equally as adults. Their stance stems from observing that young people have leaner legal boundaries around their actions, which encourages greater risk-taking. Their opposing views focus on noting that teenagers do not possess the same maturity levels as adults and deserve opportunities for redemption via second chances and rehabilitation through less severe ways of corrective measures, as opposed to stringent penalties.

The ways in which juveniles are dealt with in relation to crime greatly impact society at large. It shapes their prosecution, sentencing, rehabilitation, public safety, as well as recidivism.

The age of a juvenile offender, along with their state of growth, the offense’s seriousness, the possibility for treatment, and the juvenile’s available rehabilitation resources all play significant considerations when analyzing the systemic approach towards juveniles in conflict with the law. Furthermore, it is equally critical to examine how race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background are considered as contours factors in Chicago factors within decision-making processes around policing, prosecution, and sentencing of adolescents within the criminal justice framework.

Younger individuals do not have as fully developed socioemotional capacities as adults, which enables these children to receive secondary, softer rehabilitative methods. Brain research confirms that it indeed is possible to influence behaviors using mild strategies. Full enforcement strategies often do more harm than good, resulting in long-term mental health complications.

As discussed above, young people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds deserve special consideration because they may face discrimination based on their race or ethnicity. Quantitative analyses advanced by Sherrie Smith show youth of color are not only overrepresented in incarceration but also have become prime targets for adultifying them through increased punitive approaches without any justifiable reason or even attempts to hide bias.

Not everyone agrees with the notion that young people should be protected by a legal cloak of invisibility. Some argue that teenagers who commit violent offenses like murder and rape ought to be prosecuted accordingly. The argument against juveniles being legally protected due to their age is framed around social order, suggesting it could pose dangers to the unwritten rules of civility in society. The fact that juvenile delinquents partake in hazardous sociopathic behavior only amplifies the controversial aspects of this debate, particularly because they are not yet considered adults.

As a result of this trend, there has been an increase in community-based alternatives for juvenile offenders, including restorative justice programs over traditional forms of punishment such as incarceration. An increasing number of states have also enhanced the age restrictions regarding when someone can be legally charged as an adult. Despite these modifications to juvenile policy, including increased flexibility, such policies tend to differ widely from state to state or regionally within a more loosely defined ‘jurisdiction’.

There are certain provisions in the District of Columbia that allow minors who are charged with criminal actions to be prosecuted under adult laws if specific conditions are met. Additionally, Proposition 21 from California enables courts to impose capital punishment on minors for specific offenses (namely gang-related murders), granting them adulthood status for those particular crimes and allowing the death penalty for those acts.

Various viewpoints inform us differently on the same issue. If one considers a moral approach, questions regarding justice and equity can be raised. One may wonder whether addressing juvenile offenders’ issues strikes a balance between upholding the rights of both the offender and those who take an interest in community concerns—injured parties and society at large. From a legal perspective, there is always an angle that seeks to integrate juvenile delinquency within a broader jurisdictional framework of law and with the principles governing legal reasoning. From a political view, one may question the long-term impacts, as well as compare and contrast short-term outcomes of different policy approaches.

The current debate focuses on adding the developmental psychology concept. Developmental psychology entails studying people scientifically as they grow and develop over their lifespan. It matters about juvenile crime because it aids in understanding adolescent behavior and informs how best actions can be taken to prevent future antisocial acts.

Experts in the field of developmental psychology depict that brain development persists through adolescence and into one’s early twenties. This includes cognitive, emotional, social skills, impulse control, and decision-making abilities. Because the system that is still maturing during this time is capable of undergoing substantial change, adolescents are at a relative disadvantage compared to adults when it comes to impulsivity and risk-taking cognition. This fact becomes particularly salient within the context of the criminal justice system, which needs to assess culpability as responsibility is often thought to fully mature during later years. Balancing these considerations, most jurisdictions adopt a minimum age threshold between 16-18 years for prosecuting younger individuals as adults.

Young people who have experienced trauma or abuse are further preconditioned towards negative development, resulting in an array of mental health conditions like depression or anxiety, both of which increase their probability of engaging with the criminal justice system.

Research in developmental psychology has shown that young people’s brains continue to develop throughout adolescence and into young adulthood. This includes the development of cognitive, emotional, and social skills, as well as the ability to regulate impulses and make decisions. These areas of the brain are still developing in adolescence, which means that young people may not have the same level of impulse control, decision-making ability, and risk assessment as adults. This has important implications for the criminal justice system, as it suggests that young people may not have the same level of culpability as adults.

In recognition of this, many jurisdictions have established minimum age limits for trying young people as adults, often in the range of 16-18 years old. Moreover, research has also shown that early exposure to adverse experiences, such as trauma, abuse, neglect, and poverty, can have negative impacts on a young person’s development and increase the likelihood of delinquent behavior. These experiences can lead to the development of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety, which can further exacerbate the risk of involvement in the criminal justice system.

Therefore, developmental psychology suggests that interventions aimed at preventing juvenile crime should focus on addressing the underlying causes of delinquent behavior, such as trauma, poverty, and lack of access to education and resources. Additionally, rehabilitation programs that target cognitive and social skill development can be effective in reducing recidivism and promoting successful re-entry into society.

Literature Review

This fact becomes particularly salient within the context of the criminal justice system, which needs to assess culpability as responsibility is often thought to fully mature during later years. Balancing these considerations, most jurisdictions adopt a minimum age threshold between 16–18 years for prosecuting younger individuals as adults.

For example:

In 2018, a 17-year-old student opened fire at a high school in Parkland, Florida, killing 17 people and injuring many others.
In 2019, a 16-year-old boy was charged with murder after allegedly killing four people in their home in West Virginia.
In 2020, a 15-year-old boy was charged with murdering two people during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

While these cases are rare, they illustrate the potential for juveniles to commit serious and violent crimes. In such cases, there is often debate over whether the juvenile should be tried as an adult, given the severity of the offense.

Proponents of trying juveniles as adults argue that these crimes are too heinous to be treated leniently, while opponents argue that juveniles are not fully developed and should not be subject to the same harsh punishments as adults.

It is important to note, however, that the vast majority of juveniles who come into contact with the criminal justice system do not commit such extreme crimes. Rather, they may be involved in lower-level offenses such as drug use, property crimes, or disorderly conduct. In these cases, alternatives to traditional incarceration, such as diversion programs, may be more appropriate and effective in preventing future involvement in the criminal justice system.

Sometimes, just like adults, juveniles can be falsely accused or wrongfully convicted of a crime they did not commit. In some cases, juveniles may be coerced into making false confessions, or they may be wrongly identified by witnesses or victims.

There have been numerous cases of wrongful convictions of juveniles in the past. For example, the “Central Park Five” case in New York City in 1989 involved the wrongful conviction of five juveniles, ages 14–16, for the rape and assault of a woman in Central Park. The convictions were eventually overturned in 2002, after DNA evidence proved their innocence.

Wrongful convictions of juveniles can have lifelong impacts on their lives, including difficulty finding employment or housing, and social stigma. Therefore, it is important to ensure that all juveniles are provided with a fair and impartial trial and that their rights are protected throughout the criminal justice process.

In cases where there is doubt about a juvenile’s guilt or innocence, it is essential that the justice system conducts a thorough investigation and considers all available evidence. Additionally, juveniles should have access to competent legal counsel who can help ensure their rights are protected and that they receive a fair trial.

Overall, it is important to remember that juveniles, like all individuals, are innocent until proven guilty, and that the criminal justice system must uphold the principles of due process and equal protection under the law.

Legal Framework: India and International Jurisdictions

The principle of natural justice is important in juvenile crime because it ensures that everyone involved in a legal proceeding is treated fairly. Juveniles have the right to:

Know what they are being charged with
Know the evidence that will be used against them
Have a lawyer
Present their evidence
Question witnesses
Privacy
Be informed of their rights

The punishment given should fit the crime and be designed to help them learn from their mistake and become better people. These principles make sure that juveniles are treated fairly and given the best chance to become responsible citizens.

Overall, the issue of how to treat juveniles within the criminal justice system is a complex and multifaceted one. Through this paper, we aim to examine the arguments for and against treating juveniles as adults, evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches, and offer insights into how best to address juvenile crime.

Juvenile Justice System in India

In India, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, governs the justice system’s response to juvenile crime. The Act recognizes that juveniles are a vulnerable group and emphasizes their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The Act provides for a separate juvenile justice system with specialized courts, procedures, and programs.

The system emphasizes diversion and rehabilitation for minor offenses, while more serious crimes may result in detention in juvenile homes. Juveniles who are found to have committed heinous offenses, such as murder, rape, or acid attacks, can be tried as adults in exceptional circumstances. However, there is ongoing debate about the effectiveness of this provision, and concerns have been raised about the potential for juveniles to face harsher sentences in the adult justice system.

There are also significant challenges facing the juvenile justice system in India. For example:

Concerns about the overrepresentation of certain groups, such as Dalits and other marginalized communities
Lack of adequate funding and resources to effectively address the complex needs of young offenders, including mental health issues and trauma

Overall, the juvenile justice system in India is focused on rehabilitation and reintegration, while recognizing that juveniles are a vulnerable group. However, there are ongoing debates and challenges facing the system, including the question of whether or not juveniles should be tried and treated as adults for certain crimes.

By understanding the Indian perspective on this issue, individuals can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved and make informed judgments about potential solutions.

The History of Juvenile Justice in the United States

Before the establishment of a separate juvenile justice system in the United States, young offenders were often treated the same as adult offenders. However, in the late 19th century, social reformers began advocating for a more humane approach to dealing with young offenders, leading to the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899.

Over time, there have been shifts in the approach to juvenile justice, with some periods emphasizing punishment and others emphasizing rehabilitation. Today, the juvenile justice system focuses on rehabilitation for minor offenses, but more serious crimes may result in detention and/or transfer to the adult criminal justice system.

However, there is ongoing debate about the effectiveness of the system and whether juveniles should be tried and treated as adults for certain crimes. Understanding the history of juvenile justice in the United States is important for anyone seeking to make informed judgments about potential solutions to the challenges facing the system today.

The Current System for Dealing with Juvenile Crime

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, governs the system for dealing with juvenile crime in India. This system is focused on rehabilitating and reintegrating juvenile offenders into society rather than punishing them.

Key aspects of the system include:

Juvenile offenders between ages 16 and 18 can be tried in a juvenile justice board.
Those under 16 are sent to a juvenile home for rehabilitation.
The board conducts an inquiry into the offense and assesses the needs of the juvenile.
The juvenile may be ordered to undergo counselling, vocational training, or community service.

If the offense committed by a juvenile is serious or has caused significant harm to society, the board may order the juvenile to be tried as an adult. However, this decision is made after careful consideration of the circumstances of the case.

The Indian system emphasizes the well-being and best interests of the juvenile. Despite debates and criticisms—some arguing it is too lenient, others saying it doesn’t address root causes—the aim remains to support young offenders in becoming responsible and productive members of society.

The Impact of Juvenile Crime on Communities and Society

Juvenile crime can harm both communities and society as a whole. Areas with high levels of juvenile crime can experience:

A sense of insecurity and fear
Decreased property values
Hindered economic development

Additionally:

Victims may experience trauma and other negative effects.
Juvenile offenders may struggle with reintegrating into society.
Significant resources are required for law enforcement, court proceedings, and rehabilitation programs.

To effectively address juvenile crime, a comprehensive approach is necessary—one that includes prevention, intervention, rehabilitation, and strong community engagement and support.

Statistics on Juvenile Crime and Recidivism

In India, the National Crime Records Bureau reported that in 2019, juveniles committed about 35,000 crimes. Theft was the most common offense, followed by burglary and robbery. Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra had the highest number of reported juvenile crimes.

The recidivism rate for juvenile offenders in India is not well-documented, but there have been concerns about the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs and the lack of resources available to support the reintegration of juvenile offenders into society.^[iv] Furthermore, there have been criticisms about the treatment of juveniles within the justice system, including allegations of police brutality, denial of legal representation, and inadequate facilities in juvenile detention centers. There have also been concerns about the age determination process, with allegations that some juveniles are falsely identified as adults and sent to adult prisons.

These issues highlight the need for reform within the Indian juvenile justice system, including improved rehabilitation and support services, increased resources for detention centers, and a focus on fair and equitable treatment of all juvenile offenders.

The Argument for Trying and Treating Juveniles as Adults

Holding Juveniles Accountable for Their Actions

The argument for trying and treating juveniles as adults emphasizes the need for accountability and consequences for criminal behavior. This is based on the idea that if a juvenile commits a serious crime, they should be held responsible in the same way as an adult would be. Supporters of this approach argue that it is important for the justice system to send a clear message that criminal behavior will not be tolerated, regardless of the age of the offender. They argue that leniency towards juvenile offenders sends the wrong message and may encourage others to engage in criminal activities.

Deterrence and Public Safety

Another argument for trying and treating juveniles as adults is based on the belief that harsher punishments may serve as a deterrent to potential offenders, preventing them from committing crimes in the future. This is particularly relevant for violent crimes, as offenders who pose a threat to public safety should be dealt with in a way that minimizes the risk of further harm. Supporters of this approach argue that treating juvenile offenders as adults sends a strong message to other potential offenders that they will face serious consequences if they engage in criminal behavior.

Justice for Victims

Advocates of trying and treating juveniles as adults also argue that adult sentencing is essential for providing justice to victims of serious juvenile crimes. They argue that victims deserve to see their perpetrators held accountable and punished to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of age. Treating juvenile offenders as adults in cases of serious crimes such as murder, rape, or aggravated assault may provide a sense of closure and justice for victims and their families.^[v]

The argument for trying and treating juveniles as adults is based on the need for individual accountability, deterrence, public safety, and justice for victims. However, there are also limitations and challenges to this approach, including the unique needs and circumstances of juvenile offenders, the potential for increased recidivism, and the limitations of punitive measures in addressing the underlying causes of criminal behavior.

Ultimately, the decision of how to best address juvenile crime should take into account a range of factors, including the severity of the offense, the age and background of the offender, and the goals of the justice system.

The Argument against Trying and Treating Juveniles as Adults

Juvenile Brain Development and Maturity

One of the key arguments against trying and treating juveniles as adults is based on scientific research on the brain development of young people. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for decision-making, impulse control, and understanding the consequences of actions, does not fully develop until a person’s mid-20s. Juveniles, therefore, lack the cognitive maturity and judgment of adults and are more susceptible to making impulsive decisions and engaging in risky behaviors. This immaturity and impulsivity are seen as mitigating factors in juvenile cases and as reasons why juveniles should not be held to the same level of responsibility as adults.

The Importance of Rehabilitation

Another argument against trying and treating juveniles as adults is based on the idea that the juvenile justice system should prioritize rehabilitation over punishment. Advocates of this approach argue that young people who commit crimes are still in the process of developing and can be rehabilitated with appropriate interventions, such as counselling, education, and community service. They argue that harsh punishment is counterproductive and can increase the likelihood of recidivism.

Long-Term Consequences

Trying and treating juveniles as adults can have long-term consequences for their prospects. Adult criminal records can make it difficult for young people to secure employment, housing, and education, hindering their ability to reintegrate into society and lead productive lives. This can lead to a cycle of poverty and crime that perpetuates the problem of juvenile delinquency.

Violation of Human Rights

Treating juveniles as adults can also be seen as a violation of their human rights. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes that young people have special needs and rights, and that their best interests should be a primary consideration in all actions concerning them. Trying and treating juveniles as adults can be seen as a violation of this principle, as it fails to take into account the unique needs and vulnerabilities of young people.

Balancing Accountability and Rehabilitation

The debate over trying and treating juveniles as adults is ultimately about finding a balance between accountability and rehabilitation. While it is important to hold young people accountable for their actions, it is also important to recognize their potential for change and provide them with opportunities to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.^[vi] This requires a nuanced approach that takes into account the specific circumstances of each case, as well as the individual needs and characteristics of the young person involved.

Developmental Psychology and Juvenile Offenders

Developmental psychology is the study of how individuals change and grow throughout their lifespan, including physical, cognitive, and socio-emotional development. Understanding developmental psychology is important in the context of juvenile crime because it can help us better understand the behaviour and decision-making of juvenile offenders.

The Adolescent Brain

The adolescent brain is still developing and undergoes significant changes during adolescence. Areas of the brain that are responsible for impulse control, decision-making, and emotion regulation are still developing during adolescence. This can make adolescents more prone to risky and impulsive behaviour.

Juvenile Delinquency and Risk Factors

Juvenile delinquency is often the result of a complex interplay between environmental, biological, psychological, and social factors. Environmental factors that can contribute to juvenile delinquency include poverty, violence in the community, and lack of access to educational and employment opportunities. Biological factors, such as genetics and early exposure to substances, can also play a role in juvenile delinquency. Psychological factors, such as mental illness and trauma, can also contribute to delinquent behaviour. Social factors, such as peer pressure and gang involvement, can also influence juvenile behaviour.

The Role of Trauma in Juvenile Delinquency

Trauma refers to experiences that are emotionally or psychologically harmful, such as physical or sexual abuse, neglect, or witnessing violence. Trauma can have a profound impact on development and may lead to a variety of negative outcomes, including delinquent behaviour. Research has shown that many juvenile offenders have a history of trauma, and that trauma-informed interventions can be more effective than traditional approaches in treating juvenile delinquency.

Developmentally Appropriate Interventions

Because adolescents are still developing, it is important to use interventions that are tailored to their specific developmental needs. Evidence-based interventions for juvenile delinquency may include cognitive-behavioural therapy, family therapy, and mentoring programs. Diversion programs, which offer alternatives to incarceration, have also been found to be effective in reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders. Rehabilitation programs that focus on education, vocational training, and social skills development can also help to prevent future delinquent behaviour.

Rehabilitation and Reintegration for Juvenile Offenders

Rehabilitation and reintegration are important aspects of the juvenile justice system as they focus on addressing the root causes of juvenile delinquency and providing offenders with opportunities to become productive members of society. Research has shown that rehabilitation programs can be effective in reducing recidivism rates among juvenile offenders. Effective rehabilitation and reintegration programs should be tailored to the individual needs of each offender.

This can include addressing underlying mental health issues, substance abuse, or other factors that may have contributed to their criminal behaviour. Education and vocational training can also be a critical component of rehabilitation, helping offenders to acquire skills that will enable them to find gainful employment and support themselves upon release.^[vii]

Mentoring and counselling can also be effective in providing the emotional and social support necessary for rehabilitation and reintegration. Juvenile offenders may have experienced traumatic events or come from dysfunctional families, and it is important to provide them with a supportive environment in which they can develop positive relationships and a sense of self-worth.

While rehabilitation and reintegration programs can be effective, they require adequate funding and resources to be successful. Unfortunately, these programs are often underfunded, understaffed, and oversubscribed. Policymakers and stakeholders must prioritize funding for these programs to ensure that juvenile offenders receive the support they need to become successful and law-abiding members of society.

Natural Justice & Juvenile Rights

The concept of fairness and justice is fundamental to any legal system, and the principle of natural justice is an important component of ensuring that justice is served. This principle requires that any decision or action taken by the legal system must be fair and impartial, without any bias or prejudice.^[viii]

In the context of juvenile crime, the principle of natural justice is particularly important because juveniles are often vulnerable and in need of protection. It is therefore essential that any decision or action taken in their case is guided by the principles of fairness and impartiality, and that they are given a fair chance to defend themselves.

The principle of natural justice ensures that the rights of juvenile offenders are protected and that they are not unfairly punished or stigmatized.^[ix] This principle is an essential part of the legal system’s responsibility to promote justice and protect the rights of all individuals, including juveniles who have committed crimes.

Case Studies: Examples of Juvenile Offenders and Their Treatment within the Justice System

Case studies provide valuable insights into the experiences of juvenile offenders within the justice system and their outcomes. These examples highlight the complex and varied nature of juvenile crime and the need for a nuanced approach to treatment and punishment.

One example is the case of Lionel Tate, a 12-year-old boy who was convicted of first-degree murder in Florida in 1999. Tate was tried as an adult and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. However, his case drew national attention and was eventually overturned due to concerns about the fairness of the trial and the inappropriate use of adult sentencing guidelines. Tate was later resentenced to 30 years in prison and eventually released on parole in 2018.^[x]

Another example is the case of Kalief Browder, a 16-year-old boy who was accused of stealing a backpack and held at Rikers Island for three years without trial. Browder was subjected to brutal treatment and solitary confinement, and his mental health deteriorated as a result. He was eventually released without trial but struggled with PTSD and depression, and tragically committed suicide at the age of 22. Browder’s case highlights the flaws and injustices within the juvenile justice system and the need for reform to prevent such tragedies from occurring.

These case studies demonstrate the need for a careful and considered approach to juvenile crime, one that takes into account the unique circumstances of each offender and seeks to provide appropriate treatment and rehabilitation. The justice system must work to ensure that the rights of juvenile offenders are protected and that they are given a fair chance to turn their lives around.

The Potential Deterrent Effect of Harsher Punishments for Juvenile Crime

The argument is that if the punishment is severe enough, other juveniles will be scared to commit crimes. The belief is that by making an example out of a juvenile offender, others will be deterred from engaging in criminal activity. However, the effectiveness of harsh punishments as a deterrent is still up for debate.

Some argue that it may lead to further alienation and disengagement from society, leading to more criminal behavior. Others argue that deterrence is not the only goal of the justice system, and that rehabilitation and reintegration should also be considered.

Ultimately, it is up to society to determine what balance should be struck between punishment and rehabilitation, and what measures will be most effective in reducing juvenile crime.

The Potential Negative Consequences of Treating Juveniles as Adults

Treating juveniles as adults in the criminal justice system can have potential negative consequences. Some of the consequences include the possibility of exposing them to adult offenders, who may influence them to commit more crimes.

Furthermore, placing juvenile offenders in adult facilities can expose them to physical and sexual abuse, which can traumatize them and further worsen their behaviour.^[xi] Additionally, harsher punishments may not effectively address the underlying issues that contribute to juvenile crime, such as poverty, substance abuse, and mental health issues.

This approach may instead lead to an increase in recidivism rates, as the juvenile may not receive the necessary rehabilitation and support needed to address their behaviour. Finally, it is important to consider that juveniles are still developing cognitively and emotionally, and thus may not fully comprehend the severity of their actions. Treating them as adults may not be appropriate, as it disregards the unique needs and circumstances of juvenile offenders.

Recommendations for the Future Juvenile System

In terms of recommendations for the future of juvenile justice, experts and advocates often emphasize the importance of balancing accountability with rehabilitation. This can involve investing in evidence-based programs and interventions that address the underlying causes of juvenile crime, such as trauma, mental health issues, and substance abuse.

It can also involve providing more resources and support for families and communities to help prevent youth from engaging in criminal behaviour in the first place.

Some advocates also call for reforms to the juvenile justice system itself, such as ending the practice of automatically transferring juveniles to adult court, limiting the use of incarceration and solitary confinement for juveniles, and ensuring that youth have access to legal counsel and due process rights.

Overall, the goal is to create a juvenile justice system that prioritizes the well-being of young people while still holding them accountable for their actions and ensuring public safety. By working together to implement evidence-based strategies and reforms, we can hopefully reduce the number of youth who enter the justice system and increase the likelihood of successful rehabilitation and reintegration for those who do.

Research Methodology

Research Issue

The debate over the juvenile justice system hinges on whether it truly stops young offenders from reoffending and keeps communities safe, or whether persistent habits of harmful behavior demand the same tough approach adult criminals face. Researchers must also examine the risks attached to adult-style punishment for youth and the insights that modern brain science offers about age-differentiated culpability. By weighing these strands of evidence, the study aims to chart practical directions that lawmakers, judges, and practitioners can follow in reforming the JJS.

Research Questions

What are the arguments for and against trying and treating juveniles as adults in the criminal justice system?
What is the current system for dealing with juvenile crime, and how effective is it in terms of preventing recidivism?
What impact does juvenile crime have on communities and society as a whole?
How does developmental psychology inform our understanding of juvenile offenders, and how should this impact the way we treat them within the justice system?
What are some successful examples of rehabilitation and reintegration programs for juvenile offenders?
What are the potential negative consequences of trying and treating juveniles as adults, both for the individual and for society as a whole?
What are some potential alternatives to the current system for dealing with juvenile crime, and how effective are they in preventing recidivism?

Research Methods

Literature Review: It explores the history of the juvenile justice system, statistics on juvenile crime, arguments for and against trying juveniles as adults, the impact of juvenile crime on communities and society, and the potential deterrent effect of harsher punishments. Additionally, it discusses the principles of natural justice and the science of developmental psychology as it relates to juvenile offenders, and looks at case studies of juveniles and their treatment within the justice system. Finally, the section concludes with recommendations for the future of juvenile justice, including rehabilitation and reintegration programs for juvenile offenders.

A study by Laurence Steinberg and Elizabeth Scott found that adolescents have a unique combination of characteristics that makes them less blameworthy than adults for their criminal behavior. They found that adolescents are less able to control their impulses, are more susceptible to peer influence, and are less able to foresee the consequences of their actions than adults. These findings suggest that treating juveniles as adults in the criminal justice system may not be appropriate, as they may not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

Another study by Jennifer Woolard and colleagues examined the effects of transferring juveniles to adult court on their recidivism rates. They found that transferring juveniles to adult court increased their likelihood of reoffending, rather than deterring them from committing further crimes. This suggests that treating juveniles as adults may not be an effective way to reduce juvenile crime rates.

A review of existing research by the National Institute of Justice found that trying juveniles as adults can have negative consequences on their development and prospects. They found that juveniles who are tried and sentenced as adults are more likely to suffer from mental health problems, substance abuse, and educational deficits. Additionally, they are less likely to be rehabilitated than juveniles who are treated within the juvenile justice system.

A study by Jeffrey Fagan and colleagues found that there is a racial and ethnic bias in the way that juveniles are transferred to adult court. They found that African American and Hispanic juveniles are more likely to be transferred to adult court than white juveniles, even when controlling for the severity of their offense. This suggests that the practice of trying juveniles as adults may perpetuate existing racial and ethnic disparities within the criminal justice system.

Finally, a study by Kristin Henning and colleagues found that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions limiting the use of life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders have led to a shift towards more rehabilitative approaches to juvenile justice. They argue that this shift may be a more effective way to address juvenile crime, as it recognizes the unique developmental needs of adolescents and emphasizes the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Conclusion
In short, deciding whether young offenders should face the same legal standards as adults is anything but simple. Arguments exist on both sides, yet studies show that treating teens like adults often backfires and does little to curb youth crime. A better path may lie in rehabilitation, guided by what we know about brain development, because such an approach reduces repeat offenses and benefits both young people and the communities where they live.

Juvenile offenders are still growing up, both in body and mind. Brain research shows that key parts of the cerebral system don’t finish maturing until the mid-twenties, a fact that explains why teenagers often struggle to grasp how far-reaching their choices can be or why they make snap, risky calls that an adult would pause before repeating.

Compounding this limitation, many young people who break the law carry histories of poverty, trauma, and few community resources, robbed of chances and support that wealthier peers take for granted. Sending them into adult courts and handing down heavy sentences, therefore, feels not only unfair but also unlikely to steer any of them toward the brighter futures society claims to want.

Research consistently finds that throwing the book at young offenders does not keep them from reoffending. Treating minors like adults and locking them up under the same rules can push them deeper into a life of crime. On the other hand, programs that focus on schooling, therapy, and genuine community support cut repeat offenses because they treat the root causes of misbehavior.

Natural justice still matters in the juvenile system. Young people should answer for what they did, but the response must fit their stage of brain development and give them a real shot at turning things around. That often means easy access to classes, job skill workshops, mental health care, and steady encouragement from family and neighbors who believe they can do better.

In order to promote positive outcomes for juvenile offenders and society as a whole, it is important to focus on prevention and early intervention. This includes addressing the root causes of juvenile crime, such as poverty, trauma, and limited resources, and providing opportunities for positive development and growth. It also includes collaboration between the juvenile justice system and other social service agencies, such as mental health providers and community organizations.

In conclusion, while arguments can be made for treating juveniles as adults in the criminal justice system, research and analysis suggest that a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration, combined with an understanding of the developmental psychology of juvenile offenders, may be more effective in preventing recidivism and promoting positive outcomes. By addressing the root causes of juvenile crime and providing opportunities for positive development and growth, we can work towards a safer and more just society for all.

End Notes:

Barbara Sims, Pamela Preston. “Handbook of Juvenile Justice- Theory and Practice.
Juvenile Justice: Comparative Analysis with the Laws of USA, UK and Canada – Lexpeeps
Alida V. Merlo, Peter J. Benekos. “Reaffirming Juvenile Justice – From Gault to Montgomery
Martin, Dewaun. “The Effectiveness of African American Male Faith-based Juvenile Delinquency
Champion Dean J. The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, Processing and the Law
www.socialresearchfoundation.com
https://jlc.org/
Davis, Samuel M. and Collins, William C. The Juvenile Offenders and the law
https://www.najca.org
The Lionel Tate Case Study: A Critical Examination of Juvenile Justice: [Essay Example], 640 words
https://www.jstor.org
how many juveniles are in prison – Inmate Lookup

Written By: Ritika Agarwal

What's Hot