Juvenile justice system is the essential tool used by the US government in dealing with perceived delinquents. The system is designed for offenders above 7 years but below 18 years in age. Usually, juvenile offenders could face any one of the three scenarios where they are charged with an offense; they are either charged with the state authorities, or face the federal delinquency proceedings or even tried an adult in the federal courts. The federal authorities, as empowered by the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, therefore, play a primary role in determining the carder upon which a young offender is charged. To this regard, a key component used to determine where a juvenile offender should be rightfully charged is screening for Intellectual and Development Disability. Despite statutory guidelines on criminal age of liability, the federal authorities, as well as the courts, have a broad discretion to examine each juvenile offender’s consciousness of guilt, the alleged offense and the intellectual development of the said young offender before deciding on the jurisdiction upon which to prefer charges . I n a number of scenarios, the offenders are found to be fully matured and can take full responsibility. In such cases, the juvenile offenders are tried, convicted and sentenced as adults, a process akin to 'adultification.' Whereas the courts, both federal and state courts are in the business of dispensing justice, they owe a duty to all offenders before them, a duty to ensure that they can intellectually comprehend the offenses and proceedings before the court. Upon conviction, the courts still have a responsibility to ensure that the juvenile delinquent is sentenced accordingly and in the rightful institution, after all, the main aim of sentencing whether to a correctional facility or probation and suspended sentence is to achieve rehabilitation of the young offenders. Through the course of the juvenile justice system, there are systemic challenges that have capped realization of true justice. I n quit e seve ral instances, juveniles have undergone trial and subsequently, sentenced without a proper examination and determination of their intellectual development . Statute l aw, mainly Americans with Disability Act as well as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act accord, persons with Intellectual and development disability certain rights with regard to the justice system. However, the juvenile justice system has taken delinquents through its trial process with undue respect of their intellectual development status, consequently leading to unwarranted convictions and extended sentencing. Minors with Intellectual and developmental disability are not well placed to navigate the criminal justice system as defenders barely understand their legal rights . Ju venile Justice system also encounters time constrain challenges when dealing with a delinquent. The law requires that where a juvenile is detained, they are entitled to a delinquency hearing within thirty days, failure to which the charges against them are dismissed with prejudice, unless any further delay is the creation of the delinquent or such dismissal does not reach the interest of justice (Doyle, 2018) . Amongst several contributors on this topical issue, Judeo-Christianity is famously known for their viewpoint on treating juvenile criminals as adults. First, they opine that juveniles are not yet fully developed or matured and are incapable of grasping any underlying consequences of their crimes. Subsequently, Judeo-Christianity presumes that delinquents not to have any moral culpability and therefore, any deterrent measures taken against them are not likely to change their current opinions. Judeo-Christian point of view was expressed to the court in the case of Sullivan v. Florida/Jackson v. Florida, where religious organizations filed as amicus to weigh in on sentencing of delinquents on non-homicidal matters. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruling taking into consideration the Judeo-Christian argument ruled that Cruel and unusual punishment in juvenile non-homicide could include life without parole sentences, a jurisprudential decision that has tremendously impacted delinquency sentencing post-2010 (Terrance Jamar Graham v. Florida, 2010) .
References
Terrance Jamar Graham v. Florida, 48 (Supreme Court of the United States May 17, 2010).
Bernard, T. J., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2010). The cycle of juvenile justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Doyle, C. (2018). Juvenile Delinquents and Federal Criminal. Congressional Research Service.
