Juvenile courts reach a verdict on a young suspect depending on several factors, which later dictate their leniency. Some of these factors include the severity of the crime in question, the juvenile’s lawyer, the prosecutor, and the judge in charge. However, the possibility of prior offences also influences the verdict. Despite the weight of these factors on a verdict, the juvenile court system is strict given that crime rates and incidences have fallen, and fewer juveniles have been sentenced over the years. Therefore, I don’t think the juvenile court system is lenient; the punishment fits the crime.
The court system is less lenient because the verdicts they pass serve as severe warnings to other young adults who might get tempted to commit crimes. This is because fewer juveniles get arrested over the years. Moreover, data from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) shows that the year 2018 recorded the smallest number of juvenile arrests in nearly four decades. This means that young adults have developed more fear of the consequences of crime and deviate from committing them, the more they become aware of the repercussions. It also gives a reflection of a juvenile improving system that is punishing juvenile crime more severely.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Acts such as violence among teenagers have also reduced to indicate that the juvenile court system is stricter. Teenagers are getting more aware of the harsh verdicts laid by juvenile courts to keep them away from violence. For instance, the reports by OJJDP indicate that violence from dating in high school students decreased in 2017. Dating violence, such as physical fighting and sexual assaults decreased in young adults recorded as high school students and college juniors. This comes as a result of fear to face the harsh punishments that the juvenile court system might pass to them when they get charged.
The decrease in the number of youths in correctional facilities also indicates that the juvenile court system is performing well by giving harsh verdicts to young criminals. Harsh verdicts could be in the form of long sentences or heavy community work that most youth fear (Young et al., 2017, p. 23). According to OJJDP, “The number of youths in residential placement fell 53%, 74% in large facilities, between 2000 and 2014”. This means that less youth were getting detained as a result of fear to commit a crime and face harsh punishment. Young adults people resolved to live safely away from criminal activities past their adolescence.
The simple misdemeanor delinquency cases handled in juvenile courts also point that the system is less lenient. Teenagers commit less severe crimes knowing that the consequences of highly offensive crimes are so harsh (Young et al., 2017, p. xx). OJJDP illustrates that “More than one-third of delinquency cases in 2015 involved simple assault or larceny-theft offences.” Similarly, such number of cases fell 53% by 2015 from their peak in 1997. This means that juvenile crimes have recently committed petty crimes because serious offences could deny them a lot of freedom and destroy their lifetime. This means that the juvenile justice system is so harsh with serious offences.
In conclusion, given the statistics reported by research, I believe the juvenile court system is less lenient to young offenders. The police are making fewer arrests of teenage suspects, and young people are also less violent. The population of young people in juvenile correctional facilities is also decreasing over the years, and the courts are handling less juvenile severe crime. The ruling and strictness of these courts serve as a warning that prevents young people from committing crimes. These scenarios indicate that the juvenile system is ruling harshly on juvenile crimes, which instils fear in young people.
References
OJJDP (n.d.). OJJDP data snapshots . Retrieved September 9, 2020, from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/snapshots/index.html
Young, S., Greer, B., & Church, R. (2017). Juvenile delinquency, welfare, justice and therapeutic interventions: A global perspective. BJPsych Bulletin , 41 (1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.115.052274
