The topic of the appropriateness of death sentences for juvenile or transferring minors to adult courts is open to intense debate. Close to half of the American states allow death sentences for criminals under the age of eighteen. As a result, many questions and suggestions have been posted on the compatibility of the Juvenile Justice System (JJS) with life principles. The primary aim of introducing the juvenile justice system was to ensure underage offenders are accountable for their crimes while instilling in them reasons for escape crimes future. Chicago, in 1899 when the first juvenile court was established, there was a tremendous developmental disparity from that of adults, espousing a rehabilitative ideal. Over the years, cases of violent crimes have increased with the death penalty, taking the order of many courts in the States. As the crimes increase, murder has become a typical task for some people, including children. With these occurrences, there became a shift from JJS to more assertive policies and punishments for minor criminals, who end up in capital punishment. While the shift is experienced, juveniles should not be taken to adult courts. The culpability of children is immature compared to adults and transfers the laws that require minor prosecution in adult courts. When it comes to gambling activities, taking alcohol, and other entertainment activities, there are no debates on whether children should be involved; it's strictly for over eighteen. Therefore, as much as this topic is open for discussion, a child is a child everywhere always. Children have little knowledge and experiences of confronting adults; there is still a superiority advantage for adults. Transferring juveniles to adult courts mean that they will meet judges and staff who know how to approach adults. Therefore, they might not be able to confront or express their side of the case as they would do in juvenile courts (Welch, Butler & Gertz, 2019). Besides, their main intention of arresting criminals is to prevent such crimes' reoccurrence in the future. While the sentence acts as a punishment, it is also a learning place for good behaviors. In 1980 the US Supreme Court considered young offenders culpability to stand in adult courts. By 1990, six percent of all capital punishment was juveniles. The reason was not necessarily that minors were heinous criminals, but it was difficult for a minor to win a case in adult court. In reality, the kind of treatment a child would expect while having a case with an adult is sentimentality, which could be considered in juvenile courts. Besides, the people you stay with have the highest tendency of shaping your behavior. Transferring the juveniles, they are exposed to professional adult criminals, and the best they can acquire from then is professionalism. A recent study in the states that have adopted the shift shows that over eighty percent of juveniles who have been sentenced through adult courts are re-arrested in worse crimes (Welch, Butler & Gertz, 2019). Therefore minors should not be transferred to adult courts. Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, a minor can be tried in adult courts. Convicted juveniles are not always exposed to harsher sanctions in adult courts. Different states have different ways of sentencing, correcting, and handling transferred youths. Some critics suggested that there are possibilities of re-offending within the juvenile systems by violent criminals. Some kids are generally violent by nature, and while they are in juvenile systems, they are often caught in crimes, especially bullying their weaker colleagues (Myers, 2003). The study of past experiences has shown the re-offending s part of group differences; hence once a violent kid is transferred to adult courts, they have no one of their levels. Therefore, minors can be tried in the adult system when selection bias is the appropriate punishment. In the context of capital punishment, the culpability of minors has raised an intense debate about the age limit where execution is inappropriate. According to the international law of human rights, anyone below eighteen years at the time of the crime is protected from execution. In 2005, the US Supreme Court complied with this international norm to constitutionally protect juveniles from the death penalty, doing away with the initial limit of sixteen years. The debate has intensified to suggest that, although eighteen is the boundary between adults and minors, it is still young to assume full accountability for heinous crimes. The new brain scientists argue that the fundamental brain areas relating to consequential thinking, thrill-seeking, and judgment mature in the mid-twenties (Steinberg, 2017). Therefore, juvenile execution spurs the life-without-parole sentence decisions for minors; hence the death penalty for children should is not a thoughtful decision. Life prison is a blind form of the death penalty. Actually, life in prison is an awaited death penalty. Among the reasons for imprisonment are to separate evil from good and provide a regretful learning process to criminals. Life imprisonment and capital punishment are sentences that completely and hopelessly separate offenders from their families. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled out the mandatory sentence of juvenile life imprisonment without parole possibilities (Arora, 2019). The court's ruling decided that judges must consider the juvenile's age even for murder crimes. In March 2014, juveniles' life imprisonment without parole was ruled out since it violated the Rights for Man Declaration and the universal human rights principles. The US Supreme Court struck down life prison for non-homicide minors. And for the most heinous crimes, life imprisonment involved parole. Therefore, life imprisonment is the second-worst and harshest sentence that should be avoided in courts.
For serious juvenile offenders, effective intervention other than execution and life sentences plays an essential role in reducing juvenile delinquency. The main aim and the most desirable are to change these odds. Research has shown that the only hope we have for juvenile offenders is early interventions and federal funding initiatives for isolated minor offenders. Every youth who enters the JJS has an opportunity to access state assistance, including drug rehabilitation, education, and counseling (Delcea et al., 2019). Therefore, all convicted juvenile offenders should be detained in youth facilities separate from adult systems, where they are geared with restoration programs. The facility should provide an educational program that everyone must attend. They should be offered college courses and incorporate them with those that need physical energy. The facilities must offer them gaming opportunities. All forms of violence must be eliminated with severe, harsh punishment. Inmates should make infrequent communications with parents. For instance, the Nebraska Correctional Youth Facility ranks top with 99.7% behavioral change for their inmates who are seriously violent juveniles. In conclusion, having the most violent, non-consequential, and thrill-seeking youths doesn't suggest total loss. Despite the past histories about juvenile homicides, whether executed or not, capital punishment is not the solution. It is essential to understand that children's culpability to determine serious crimes never matures until their mid-twenties. The aspect of transferring juveniles to adult systems will expose minors to adult professionals in crime, and that is the much they will learn. Capital punishment and life prison for minors violate the international law of human rights. The best thing we can do for the juveniles is isolating and detaining them in juvenile facilities where they will access effective interventions with educational progress.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Myers, D. L. (2003). The recidivism of violent youths in juvenile and adult court: A consideration of selection bias. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice , 1 (1), 79-101.
Delcea, C., Fabian, A. M., Radu, C. C., & Dumbravă, D. P. (2019). Juvenile delinquency within the forensic context. Rom J Leg Med27 (4) , 366-372.
Steinberg, L. (2017). Adolescent brain science and juvenile justice policymaking. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 23 (4), 410.
Arora, A. (2019). Juvenile Crime and Anticipated Punishment. Available at SSRN 3095312 .
Welch, K., Butler, L. F., & Gertz, M. (2019). Saving children, damning adults? An examination of public support for juvenile rehabilitation and adult punishment. Criminal Justice Review , 44 (4), 470-491.
