The criminal justice system draws a clear line on how juveniles and adults are charged and sentence in courts. Juveniles suffer much fewer consequences as compared to adults. An adult who does the same crime as a juvenile will be subjected to a much severe ruling than the young person. Many people have questioned whether this is fair or not.
The legal construction works with the notion that the understanding of a juvenile is certainly not clear as that of an adult. Therefore, the actions of a juvenile may be clouded. The juvenile system, therefore, has been tailored to lead a convicted juvenile in the right direction rather than punishing the child for the crimes he/she has committed. While this may seem slightly unfair, it is the correct way of dealing with this in my opinion.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The notion that the actions of a child are so because of an unclear understanding is merely an assumption. Some actions can be arguably done with full knowledge and understanding of the consequences. However, there is a very thin line that can help to distinguish whether a juvenile was fully aware of his actions and consequences or not. This is why the court gives the benefit of doubt.
The benefit of doubt is not a bad thing. We have seen it being used even in cases involving adults. Jurisdictions to draw the line between a genuine mistake by a juvenile and a clearly intentional mistake have struggled to fit in the justice system (Scialabba, 2016) . Furthermore, generalizing young people as juveniles and trying to lead them in the correct direction takes less effort and seem fairer to young people than trying to convict some of them using adult charges. In a nutshell, age should be a key factor when making rulings in courts.
Reference
Scialabba, N. (2016). Should Juveniles Be Charged as Adults in the Criminal Justice System?. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-rights/articles/2016/should-juveniles-be-charged-as-adults/
