Despite diverse study results, the arbitration of juveniles in criminal court and confinement of adolescents in adult prisons seem to give few benefits and pose a high risk of drawbacks. According to current research, jail and criminal adjudication have the opposite effect of increasing community safety and improving young offenders' responsibility and law-abiding conduct. Before significant policy pronouncements can be made, further study must be done. On the other hand, juvenile court adjudication is faster than criminal court judicial review, and adolescents facing sentencing in criminal courts are often freed without monitoring and rearrested for new crimes. Even while adolescents are more likely to be sentenced to lengthier and more severe terms in prosecution, they may only complete a part of their sentences.
Introduction
Juvenile courts were first established in the eighteenth century since the community realized that adolescents did not have the intellectual abilities that adults had, would gain more from rehabilitation programs to avoid recidivism, and required greater safeguards. Lawmakers grew convinced that they ought to be "tough on crime" due to societal and political shifts in views, and minors were more often transferred to the adult criminal justice system. When minors are tried in adult court rather than the juvenile court, recurrence rates are higher than those charged in the juvenile justice system. Just as quickly as adult court reform started, improvements are needed so that we can return to concentrating on adolescents' best interests when they are criminally charged. When juveniles are discharged from juvenile jails, they require services to help them flourish rather than suffer the terrible consequences of adult prison systems. Rather than just condemning, the legal system should concentrate on rebuilding young people. While it is possible that the relationship between the juvenile and the offender will have no bearing on a juvenile's conviction, it is possible that adolescents who kill relatives or companions could face different punishments in adult courts due to the wide range of judicial options available in juvenile courts. However, it is worth noting that when male and female perpetrators were pooled into one collection, the victim type failed to emerge as a major predictor or affect judgments made by female offenders. Suppose the findings are confirmed in future research. In that case, it will be significant since she discovered that female murderers are more likely than male murderers to attack a member of their own family.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Literature review
Preventing adolescents from being involved in criminal activity requires early intervention. The frequency of crime may be reduced through swift and consistent punishment for offenses. Re-offending prevention services are provided to juvenile offenders after they complete their sentences. Those responsible for committing crimes against children and adolescents are promptly brought to justice as possible. Those that believe in fairness will agree with this. Juvenile criminal law applies to crimes committed by juveniles. Every adolescent is unique, and as such, they should get the help that is also unique to them. Because of their violent tendencies, certain people may be required by the courts to take a course on how they may better manage and regulate their anger. Young offenders' facility releasees need to reintegrate into society by going to school or university or obtaining a job after they are out of prison. End-of-custody education and training programs are designed to assist them in preparing for life after school.
A study by Scott and Steinberg (2008) shows the enormous shifts in the law's perception of juvenile criminals between the 19th-century and early 21st. Most juveniles were tried and sentenced like adults during the beginning of the juvenile court system, they write. Young offenders should be given therapy that will help them change their habits rather than being punished, according to early juvenile court reformers. Public opinion and public policy changed in the latter decades of the twentieth century when teenage violence increased the belief that juveniles should be held accountable for their actions much like adults (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). There seems to be a lack of understanding of lawmakers' developmental variations between teens and adults. There is evidence that legislators and the public are once again evaluating their positions. As a result of the "adult time for adult crime" judicial system, many believe that capital prosecution is overly lenient regarding the age and maturity of offenders. State legislatures have also lately rescinded or softened several of the punishing measures they recently passed. Meanwhile, the authors note that public outrage has cooled, and views toward juvenile offenders have changed.
According to Bechtold and Cauffman (2014), one of the most contentious questions in juvenile court is whether minors who do significant crimes should be punished more like adults or minors who are caught with minor offenses. However, there is no empirical study on where youths who are moved to the older people's court should be held, despite a large body of empirical evidence showing that juveniles transported to courts of older people are more likely to return to jail (Bechtold & Cauffman, 2014). Adolescent offenders being housed among adult felons may harm them and encourage them to become more sophisticated crooks. Although holding the most aggressive and consistent juvenile offenders—those who have been moved to senior's court—in junior's institutions may lead to a rise in violent crime, juvenile court youngsters may be adversely affected. Thus, this research's primary objective is to examine the organizational behavior and assault experiences among juveniles jailed at the same time in safe, adolescent state prisons. According to a new study, juvenile criminals convicted in criminal court should not be housed alongside adult offenders. It is maintained that juveniles sent to adult court should not be housed alongside adults because of the increased risk of criminal development, victimization, and suicide attempts. Alternatively, it has been argued that placing these adolescents among minors who have committed less severe offenses and are consequently judged in juvenile courts may have unexpected implications for juvenile court youngsters.
According to Steinberg (2001), young offenders are handled based on age rather than their offenses in the juvenile jails. Rehabilitation and counseling rather than punishment are the goals of the juvenile court. Public opinion in the 1980s and 1990s favored treating minors harshly and putting them on trial as adults. Several states have enacted rules that make it easier for some juvenile criminals to be tried as adults, while others have proposed eliminating juvenile courts altogether. Since the beginning of the juvenile court more than a century ago, a fundamental principle has been that young criminals should not be tried in adult criminal courts (Steinberg, 2001). It has been argued that the argument over whether or not to eliminate the accused person diverts attention from the most pressing issue in juvenile court. Formative years in the home may have a significant role in developing many forms of juvenile delinquency. Child abuse and neglect and inconsistent and severe punishment are common in these families. As a result, young people living in poverty-stricken areas are more likely to engage in criminal activity. Certain communities have unique changes for those who want to learn about or participate in violence.
Nunez et al. (2007) explain that academics are interested in the rising trend of sending young offenders to law trials on two levels. As a result of this research, many people believe that teenagers have the same legal rights and obligations as adults regarding criminal charges, treatment options, and self-defense. This study focuses on the growing evidence that teenagers, especially those under the age of 13, are frequently immature enough to deserve special treatment from the judicial process. Inquiry into how the public views juvenile criminals is a closely connected topic that has gotten less attention. First and foremost, this field of study has a double significance. Adults' perceptions of juvenile criminals may significantly impact public opinion and policy choices regarding juveniles. For instance, in the 1980s and 1990s, numerous states in the United States implemented or supported laws that permitted juveniles who committed a greater variety of offenses to be transported to the adult court system, where they may face harsher sentences. It is widely accepted that the public believes that today's children are more aggressive and less responsive to therapy than they were a generation ago. As a result, public opinion and policy must be informed by developmental research. When adolescents are moved to criminal court, adult jurors must make judgments. Legislators and developmental psychologists may benefit from understanding the elements that impact adult decision-making.
According to Gogua (2020), improvements in juvenile justice policy in recent years have sparked controversy among political and regulatory researchers. Family members, particularly fathers and mothers, play a significant duty in a child's or teen's growth. Troubles connected to one's own relatives may be one of the danger factors. These difficulties might be financial, societal, or any other kind of concern. The proportion of abandoned children in Georgia is increasing in tandem with the increase in the number of undocumented migrants. To keep young children safe from being placed in an uncomfortable situation, it might be difficult for grandparents or other caretakers to pay attention and keep an eye on them all the time. A youngster or teenager may commit a crime if they are in the wrong environment (Gogua, 2020). Domestic abuse, parental apathy, and unhealthy habits may contribute to criminal behavior. Victims of violence are often those with the propensity to do violent acts. Family, school, and other social situations may all be places where people are confronted with violence. There is a strong correlation between childhood trauma and the development of damaged relationships between adults and children, as well as a lack of communication and the development of "bullies" as a means of proving themselves. Childhood and adolescence are two of the essential periods in a person's social development. Childhood is a formative period for developing values, patterns of conduct, and underlying motivations (Gogua, 2020). A person's relationship with their parents and extended family is crucial at this period. The influence of parents typically gives way to the impact of classmates and friends throughout adolescence as individuals seek to identify and develop their own identities.
Practices in the Juvenile Justice
Juvenile justice is a complex system that is influenced by the law and influenced by local practices. Numerous organizations and people examine and analyze juveniles who enter the court system after apprehension by law enforcement. Charges are evaluated for legal validity, and a judicial procedure may be utilized to demonstrate their culpability for the conduct of a crime. Other justice system players work to find a cost-effective and suitable program or sentence for the kid if the situation warrants it. It is common for prior judgments to be affected by the availability and appropriateness of an intervention. To hold youth accountable following state statutes, satisfying due process, and preventing crime cost-effectively and efficiently, the process is designed to provide rehabilitation in the most significant and high-risk instances while minimizing costs and ignoring the use of costly initiatives for low-risk children and those accused with less extreme crimes (Scott & Steinberg, 2008) . The juvenile justice system includes a broad range of specialists, semiprofessionals, civilians, and activists. Even though all stakeholders are committed to the stated aims, they make judgments and suggest actions based on their own respective viewpoints and beliefs.
Many persons are engaged in the juvenile justice system, and balancing their differing viewpoints and expectations may be a challenge. Youths accused of comparable delinquent activities may be dealt with severity on where they reside, the features of their family, color or culture, demeanors, participation in alcoholism, and any mental health disorders, and the real damage their conduct has imposed on others and the community (Bechtold & Cauffman, 2014) . One group of young people is subjected to harsh treatment, while another is treated informally and even removed from the process without a legal record of their interaction. Even if a crime is very heinous or the perpetrator has a long criminal history, these factors are not enough to guarantee a conviction. A variety of circumstances influences an individual delinquency case's progress through the legal system.
The juvenile justice system is a complicated, value-driven, and highly political enterprise. It does not need a thorough evaluation of a patient's requirements or the use of precise treatment plans. It is thus impossible to draw any conclusions about a young person's lethality or damage purely based on how that person is treated in the juvenile court. It is not only the conduct of the young that's to blame; bureaucracy, politics, and cultural notions of societal issues all play a role (Steinberg, 2001) . The goal of law enforcement personnel is to rapidly identify and punish minor offenders and guarantee that each minor gets an appropriate and effective punishment. It is the goal of prosecutors to keep the justice system running smoothly while also protecting the rights and sentiments of victims of crime. Attorneys for defense care about how their clients are handled.
For the most part, the term "juvenile delinquent" refers to a misbehaving adolescent under the age of 18 who gets into problems regularly. What comes to mind is a teenager prone to violence and erratic behavior, such as skipping school or drinking alcohol. Despite its widespread acceptance, this concept of delinquency is inadequate for discussing juvenile justice practices and policies. It is too wide-ranging. If one is a misbehaving minor, juvenile court is not their only option. Not all of their transgressions of the law may be classified as deeds of delinquent behavior, even if they are minors (or juveniles). Juvenile courts may also have jurisdiction over minors who engage in conduct that would not be deemed criminal in the eyes of adults. Because they only apply to adolescents, they are sometimes characterized as standing offenses rather than people act of misbehavior (Steinberg, 2001) . The most prevalent status crimes are runaways, truants, curfew violators, and refusals to follow parents, instructors, or other legitimate authority. Underage use of alcoholic drinks or cigarettes and consenting sexual activity are other prevalent status violations. Additionally, the term "standing offense" is not utilized in all countries, as previously stated. These young individuals are considered as total. Several states employ phrases such as "adolescents in need of surveillance" or "persons in need of supervision" to emphasize the fact that a child has not been accused of a crime but may nevertheless be susceptible to court surveillance.
Delinquency is defined as an act of unlawful activity while the case is still within the jurisdictional authority of a court that is authorized to deal with delinquent affairs. A "transfer" statute is in place in every state that takes some kids or certain cases from the authority of the juvenile justice system and places them in the state trial (Gogua, 2020) . State laws describe the reach of these transfer procedures in different ways, based on various permutations of age, crime, and previous records, which are outlined in their respective statutes. Juvenile court judges in most jurisdictions have the authority to transfer minors to criminal courts, allowing them to be prosecuted there instead than in juvenile court. Nevertheless, in certain places, a judge's permission is not required. There are two ways juveniles might be exempted from transfer: either through a statutory exception or by a preemptive legislative act termed automatic transfer (Gogua, 2020) . Delinquent acts such as theft or robbery will be prosecuted in juvenile court if committed by a minor, such as a 15-year-old who takes anything of value. Based on the youngster's maturity at the time of the incident, a 15-year-old may be charged with burglary, and in certain jurisdictions, that case may be immediately adjudicated in criminal court. A young person accused of robbery after the age of majority loses the privileges afforded by their juvenile status instantaneously.
Findings and discussion
Youth criminal policies should be reevaluated now. For some years, the anxiety that spurred the harsh juvenile justice changes of the last generation has waned. As a result, even proponents of harsh measures are reconsidering their position. Under a mitigation paradigm, most young offenders would be handled within juvenile facilities. Because these are normal teenage offenses, prosecuting a 16-year-old vehicle thief or small-time drug supplier as a grownup is short-sighted. However, a mitigation-oriented justice strategy is only sustainable if it does not substantially undermine public safety. Adults should be prosecuted and punished for elder violent habitual offenders (Scott & Steinberg, 2008) . These young people are guilty in the same way as adults, causing considerable damage. They are also less likely than the average young person to be a typical teenager and more likely to be a first-time offender. Adult punishment of violent repeat offenders is a crucial safety valve for young offenders. In the wake of the rehabilitative model's demise, juvenile justice policies must pay close attention to the genuine concerns of the community.
There is no evidence to support the idea that adults convicted of crimes should be obliged to spend their time apart from their peers of the same age. Adult court juveniles should be housed separately from adult offenders in most situations, given the evidence of damage caused on minors in adult jails and their higher chance of re-offending. Because of the lack of conclusive evidence that these adult court minors are engaged in high levels of organizational misbehavior in a juvenile facility, it is possible that lawmakers may want to recognize residential adult court juveniles depending on criteria such as their ages and their developmental needs, rather than based exclusively on their legal status. Because juveniles are transported to adult institutions as retribution, it is assumed (Bechtold & Cauffman, 2014) . From the government's perspective, these minors are adults, and adults are punished by jail. According to this line of reasoning, this suggests that violent juvenile criminals should be kept apart from less severe juvenile offenders. When detained in the same facility, juvenile court adolescents are more likely than adult court youth to commit institutional offenses. One of the most crucial considerations is the prospect of holding adult court minors in juvenile institutions, even if voters and the justice system determine that such offenses require adult criminal prosecutions and extensive court participation.
According to the study, mitigating variables might alter the inclination to trial a youngster in adult court. Even in cases where a young person has been subjected to years of abuse, there may be a choice for a juvenile justice system rather than an individual one. 1998 Policing and Crime Act, which was inspired by the Thompson–Venables incident, has been cited as an example of public uproar influencing governmental policy. U.S. lawmakers enacted harsher penalties for juveniles because of the impression that they were becoming more violent (Steinberg, 2001) . According to this study, public opinions and wants are not sufficiently reflected by regulations that do not take into account mitigating circumstances. Suppose these results are confirmed by more research. In that case, people could predict that elements that raise the relevance of retribution will cause them to propose an adult court's jurisdiction in instances involving minors. Examples include a victim's young age, which may lead to a desire for adult court jurisdiction if the crime was particularly horrendous. Several high-profile crimes have sparked public outrage because of the young offenders or the severity of the offenses. Juvenile governments may also be preferred because of aspects that make rehabilitation more important.
Young people are often tried and charged in the adult criminal justice system even though there is a distinct juvenile justice system. Youth are still being prosecuted and sentenced even though crime has reduced over the years. Children should not be punished the same way the courts punish adults. Children are less likely to re-offend as they become older, which means that incarcerating them for long periods will not help them get rehabilitated (Gogua, 2020) . Violence and trauma are common experiences for juveniles in the criminal justice system. There is an increased risk of sex abuse, assault, and suicide among youth in the adult criminal justice system. Imprisoning minors alongside adults also restricts their participation in a wide range of vital programs, such as basic and special education and mental health care and psychotherapy. Youth's ability to successfully reintegrate back into their communities is jeopardized if they do not have access to sufficient and suitable educational options.
Conclusively, the heavier penalty should be given to teenagers who conduct more violent crimes with more severe repercussions than those who commit lesser crimes with less dire repercussions. To avoid harsh punishments and reward maturity and mental complexity, minors who commit serious crimes should be treated differently from those who commit less serious offenses. Rather than varying by crime type, levels of perceived competence for juvenile offenders should rise entirely as a function of defendant age if the main rationale for the severe sentence is a general concern about violent crimes, but violence is not indicative of maturity or mental complexity. Rather than treating adolescents as adults, Juvenile Law Center advocates for the use of the juvenile courts, which focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution. At the same time, we urge for appropriate due process, which includes ensuring that a court's judgment is made after a thorough and thorough hearing and that the decision may be appealed to another judge. Punishment distributions and the Punishment/Reform combination show that severe sentencing is motivated by antipathy toward violent crime and its perpetrators. In the future, researchers should look for strategies to isolate the most violent adolescents from the most vulnerable youth regardless of the court they are incarcerated in. This research indicates that adolescents with the most serious offenses are not likely to be prosecuted as adults.
References
Bechtold, J., & Cauffman, E. (2014). Tried as an adult, housed as a juvenile: A tale of youth from two courts incarcerated together. Law and Human Behavior , 38 (2), 126-138. doi:10.1037/lhb0000048
Gogua, I. (2020, July 3). Juvenile delinquency - Causes, prevention, and the ways of rehabilitation - Penal reform international. Retrieved from https://www.penalreform.org/blog/juvenile-delinquency-causes-prevention-and-the-ways-of/
Nunez, N., Dahl, M. J., Tang, C. M., & Jensen, B. L. (2007). Trial venue decisions in juvenile cases: Mitigating and extralegal factors matter. Legal and Criminological Psychology , 12 (1), 21-39. doi:10.1348/135532505x73768
Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescent development and the regulation of youth crime. The Future of Children , 18 (2), 15-33. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0011
Steinberg. (2001). Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults? Law and Justice journal .
