Should Juvenile Offenders Be Tried as Adults?

The question regarding whether juvenile offenders ought to be tried as adults remains a very sensitive one, which stems from the general perceptions of society about youth crime and justice. The system of juvenile justice in the US stretches back to the early 20th century, when the chief aim was the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, but in the 1990s, the aim became punitive. This change was the result of the increase in the rates of violent crimes and efforts to strengthen punishments; Lionel Tate, for instance, was given a sentence of life in prison with no parole for an act of murder executed at the age of twelve. Those who support the process of transferring juveniles to the adult system believe that serious criminal acts call for severe repercussions to protect society, punish the offenders, and prevent future misconduct. However, the opponents argue that juveniles are in a different mental and emotional state than adults, thus calling for a separate justice system that focuses more on the rehabilitation of juveniles. While the severity of crimes committed by some juveniles can justify adult-level consequences, it is crucial to balance this with an understanding of their potential for reform and the adverse effects of adult prison environments on young offenders.

Historical Context and Legislation

The development of the juvenile justice system in the U.S. shows a social change process in terms of youth offenders. The system was developed in the early twentieth century with an approach that was based on the idea of correction of the offenders and not punishment (Justice, 1974). This period signaled the creation of the juvenile court system, as legislators and authorities believed that youths should not be punished as severely as adults, as they had the possibility of change for the better. The most important act in this period was the Juvenile Justice along with the Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. This groundbreaking legislation focused on the treatment model, which required that status offenders not be institutionalized and that community-based treatment methods be sought (Justice, 1974). JJDPA was intended to be reformative and aimed at addressing the root causes that led to juvenile delinquency, including family matters, poverty, truancy, and a lack of education, through the provision of services and programs for juveniles.

Nevertheless, there was a dramatic switch in the 1990s, with more punitive measures being taken towards juvenile offenders. During this period, the so-called “tough on crime” approach began to emerge, and many juveniles were tried and sentenced as adults. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was instrumental in this process. This act broadened the conditions under which juveniles could be tried as adults (H.R.3355 – (1993-1994). It became evident that there was an upsurge in violent crimes and therefore the need to enforce stricter measures on youths who engage in criminal activities. Some of the provisions of the law included enhanced adult sentencing for juveniles, therefore fueling the incarceration rates of young offenders in adult centers.

Trying Juveniles as Adults

The concern over whether juveniles should be charged as adults has several arguments that support the penalties grounded on the weight of the crime committed, the risks to the public, the purpose of preventing crime, and justice for the victims. The case of Lionel Tate essentially raises the very sensitive and much-discussed issue of giving juveniles an adult trial. Lionel Tate, 12 years old, was found guilty of the first-degree murder of a six-year-old girl, Tiffany Eunick, whom he killed on July 28, 1999, after she had beaten him (Dana, 2001). Even though Tate was only a teenager, the man was prosecuted as an adult, and he was given the harshest possible punishment, namely life imprisonment without parole, thus becoming a vital precedent in the criminal justice system (Dana, 2001). This might be considered the key case in the juvenile justice discussion and brings up the issue of how society should react to heinous crimes by persons under the age of majority. One of the key reasons for juvenile wrongdoers to be tried as adults is the severity of the crimes committed. Lionel Tate's forceful killing of a child is a severe crime, leading many to believe that certain crimes, regardless of age, are not acceptable. Supporters state that certain criminal acts are grave and can only deserve severe consequences to recall the guilt and punish accordingly.

Public security and deterrence are other serious arguments. Tough sanctions, including those that were imposed on Tate, are viewed as effective measures capable of preventing other potentially delinquent youths from engaging in criminal behavior (Javdani et al., 2019). The rationale is that an equivalent penalty will serve as a sufficient deterrent to other young people, thereby increasing social order. The objective of subjecting young people to trials is to deter violent crimes, irrespective of the offender’s age, by handing them adult sentences. Another factor is accountability and justice for the victims (H.R.3355 – (1993-1994). Making sure that victims and their families get justice is an important factor, and perhaps the act of trying juveniles as adults is seen in this light. Families of victims such as Tiffany Eunick strive for justice, and at times, the juvenile offender's adult sentence serves as the sole means to accomplish this. This approach emphasizes the need for accountability, reinforcing that serious crimes have serious consequences.

Arguments Against Trying Juveniles as Adults

Juveniles' brains are still developing, impacting how they make decisions and control impulses. For instance, in Roper v. Simmons (2005), the US. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on individuals for criminalities committed under the age of 18 (543 U.S. 551 (2005)). Taking cues from the Atkins ruling, the Missouri Supreme Court reconsidered Simmons' case, referencing the 1989 U.S. (543 U.S. 551 (2005)). Supreme Court verdict in Stanford v. Kentucky, which had upheld the constitutionality of executing minors. The Missouri court recognized that public opinion had shifted significantly since 1989, with new laws restricting the application of the death penalty.

The juvenile justice system prioritizes rehabilitation, often resulting in better long-term outcomes for young offenders. In the landmark case of Kent v. United States, a 16-year-old petitioner was arrested for housebreaking, robbery, and rape (Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966)). Under the District of Columbia Juvenile Court's jurisdiction, the petitioner would only be tried in an adult court if the court of juvenile, after a thorough investigation, decided to waive its jurisdiction. Petitioner's counsel requested a waiver hearing as well as access to the juvenile court's Social Services file, which had been gathered while on the petitioner's probation for a prior violation.

Negative Impact of Adult Prisons on Juveniles

The incarceration of juveniles in adult prisons has severe and detrimental impacts on their well-being and prospects. Juveniles placed in adult facilities face a significantly higher risk of physical and sexual assault compared to those housed in juvenile detention centers (Javdani, 2019). Appropriate supervision and protection measures are lacking in adult prisons, which results in young prisoners being exposed to exploitation by older and more experienced convicted persons. This exposure to violence may further result in severe psychological trauma, worsening the cases of mental disorders that the majority of juvenile offenders experience (Steinberg et al., 2003). Besides, it is challenging to transform adult prisons into institutions capable of offering education and other rehabilitation measures that will help youths become better individuals. Such children in adult facilities hardly get any access to education, which is very important to their intellectual and social development.

Conclusion

Trying juveniles as adults should not be done in a blanket fashion, but should be done for each case, depending on the type of crime committed, the offender's maturity level, age, and their chances of being reformed. In other words, juvenile offenders are a different breed from adult criminals, as they have not even fully developed cognitively and emotionally. Consequently, the applied measures of juvenile justice cannot be universal and may be unjust and, therefore, ineffective. The legal system has to ensure that children and juveniles who have committed severe crimes are punished adequately while still considering their ability to change for the better.

Recommendations for Policy and Practice

Changes are necessary for a fair and efficient juvenile justice system. First, the policy must prioritize the rehabilitation of delinquent juveniles and afford them educational, counseling, and vocational facilities. Second, we should adopt legal strategies that include the following aspects: fair and respectful court proceedings for juveniles and age-appropriate sentences. Third, an assessment of the effectiveness of implemented juvenile justice programs for learning best practices and areas for continuous enhancement is required. Lastly, there should be more cooperation between legal agencies, welfare centers, and non-governmental organizations to build a support system for troubled young people. By implementing these reforms, ministers can foster an environment that allows juvenile offenders to improve their circumstances and become productive members of society, thereby benefiting both these individuals and society at large.