Any person violating the law needs to be dealt with accordingly; age notwithstanding. Once a person has been found to commit a criminal offense then he or she is liable for punishment as decided by the justice system. However, a unique situation presents itself when the offender involved is a young person below the minimum adult age. Such cases were difficult to handle and decide. Experience revealed that using similar punishments, as those used with adult offenders were not always, effective hence the need for an alternative system that meets the exceptional needs of young offenders. This marked the birth of a juvenile justice system whose composition is mainly focused on rectifying and reforming youth offenders.
This system is just as serious and intense as the mainstream adult justice system. It is meant for correctional purposes. Offenders are punished according to the stipulations of the law and a certain procedure is followed when dealing and deciding such cases. One of the most important members of this system is a juvenile judge. This judge has the responsibility to listen to the case in a juvenile court, assess the evidence and give judgment as he or she deems fit. The judge determines the kind of punishment a youth offender ends up getting. Even though the offender is not tried before a jury because he or she is under 18 years, the judge is responsible for evaluating all evidence brought forward by the prosecutor and pass judgment on whether or not the offender committed the said crime.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Juvenile Judge’s Role
The role of the judge is the most crucial one in the entire system. It combines collaborative, administrative and advocacy tasks among other non-traditional components (Edwards, 1992) . One traditional role that a juvenile judge has is to make decisions on legal matters. It is important for the judge to settle and make a decision on a number of factors including whether the child offender should be separated from the parents or if the youth offender is to be returned to the parents and community. Depending on the decision, the judge goes ahead to pass a ruling on the type of assistance that will be required to promote the youth offender’s reform. Based on the judge’s decision, the youth offender may find himself or herself in a different and unfamiliar setup permanently.
If I were a juvenile judge, I would be strict but at the same time understanding. I will enforce the rule of law because my aim is to ensure that these young offenders learn a lesson and refrain from repeating the same mistakes. I would give sound punishments but treat every case uniquely since the contents vary even when the offense it similar. I understand the gravity of the ruling that I have to make every time a youth offender is brought to my court. The family unit is important in the society and any issue that tries to threaten its existence must be dealt with squarely. My responsibility as a judge is to determine if the environment in which the offender is could be the reason behind continued offences. If so, then I would have to make difficult choices that may affect the parents and the youth offender but increase the chances of reform and better citizenship.
In my judgment of juvenile cases, I would want to find out how the youth offender got into the system. This can happen either because a law enforcement officer arrested the offending youth or when parents, schools and probation officers decide to refer the delinquent youth to the system. I will access the information brought forth by the officer in charge. This could be gathered from the parents, witnesses at the crime scene or the offender.
Potential Punishment in Juvenile cases
The juvenile system has numerous punishment options for youth offenders. However, these punishments are classified into two main categories mainly the non-incarceration and incarceration punishments or sentencing. My role as a judge would be to determine where an offender falls. My judgment would depend on the severity of the offence as well as the offender’s criminal history. My punishments will be very harsh for numerous repeat offenders since my aim is to show the offending youth the consequences of crime, which are dire. I will settle on specific punishments depending on the age of the offender as well. Younger offenders would get equally harsh punishments but not as difficult as the older youth offenders. The following are some of the punishments that I would administer if I were a juvenile court judge.
Incarceration Punishments
In cases where I rule in favor of incarceration, the offender will have to be contained in a juvenile correctional facility, an equivalent of prison for an adult offender. For minor criminal offenses, I would recommend house arrest where the minors’ movement would be restricted and monitored and any violation could trigger serious consequences. As part of my judgment counseling session would be included for offenders that I feel would gain from it. In the case where parental influence could be the reason behind delinquent behavior my judgment would be for the minor to live in a foster home or with a relative. For slightly more severe cases, I would rule for short-term juvenile hall stay and probation follow-up once the period is done. For the serious crimes such as murder, I would sentence the youth offender to a longer period of confinement in a secured juvenile facility. I could also sentence the offender to a state adult prison if the offence is repeated and severe. In some cases, the youth offender would start out in a juvenile facility under strict watch until attainment of 18 years where a transfer to the state prison is arranged. I would use incarceration for the instances that I believe an offender needs harsh punishment especially when it is not a first time offense and the offender is almost 18 years of age (Levitt, 1997) . I would be very harsh on certain crimes such as first-degree murder, rapes, sodomy, child molestation and forceful penetration by objects. These offences are very serious even in the adult justice system. A youth offender needs to understand that it is not acceptable.
Non-incarceration Punishments
For younger, first time offenders with less serious offenses I would punish differently. My judgment would include verbal warnings, fines, and counseling sessions as well as supervised community service. Warnings and cautions would work in a number of instances. First, the police must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to charge the youth offender in court. The offender must also admit to the offence before the police. Finally, a warning can be issued if the police believe that the offender does not need to be incarcerated or given a conditional warning for the offence. In case of a troublesome youth offender I would, rule for electronic monitoring where the offender has to wear an ankle or wrist bracelet that signals the officer in charge of the offender’s whereabouts at all times. Violation of the jurisdictions would then lead to confinement (Trupin & Boesky, 2002) . As a judge, I understand that youth offenders can be problematic. In case of violation of any ruling, probation is needed. The offenders will have to report to their probation officer after completing every step of their punishment. Violation of any sort would attract a harsher punishment with incarceration being most probable.
Being a fair judge, I will ensure that a youth offender with repeat mistakes is no reason to judge harshly. I will treat each offence differently and judge it like a first time offense. However, when the offender continues to become a public threat then I would rule with the public interest at heart. It is important to get facts right from the police since they are the ones responsible for apprehending the youth offender. In passing fair judgment, I would consider all factors including the environment that the youth offender was in which starts from the family or place of residence. It possible that crimes of hate could be resulting from influence in the environment; in such cases, my judgment will incline towards changing this environment and relocating the youth offender.
Conclusion
Correct judgment of youth offenders is delicate. There are numerous factors to consider as a judge. It is important to weigh all the factors before passing an appropriate judgment. There are instances when leniency is called for but others require harsh and serious punishment if the right change is to be effected. Youth offenders should not be left to mercies based on age. Serious crimes should be treated as such even if it means locking up the youth offender in an adult prison for a certain period. However, there are rules that must be followed. In case of such incarceration, the youth should be transferred within six hours to a juvenile confinement. In addition, during the stay at the adult prison, the youth offender should be separated from the other offenders. Transfers to adult prisons should only happen after the youth offender turns 18 years in case the incarceration period is not completed. A juvenile judge should be considerate and fair at all times. This is what I would be if given the chance.
References
Edwards, J. (1992). Juvenile Court and the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge. The. Juv. & Fam. 43, 1.
Levitt, C. (1997). Juvenile crime and punishment . National Bureau of Economic Research.
Trupin,P and Boesky, S. (2002). . Effectiveness of a dialectical behaviour therapy program for incarcerated female juvenile offenders. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 7(3) , 121-127.
