The juvenile system has been an instrumental element in the criminal justice system towards ensuring that young offenders are held accountable for their actions. The system keeps the welfare of the youth intact, as it is focused on the reintegration of young offenders into society. However, for states such as Michigan, Florida, and Maryland, juveniles are subject to incarceration to adult facilities in the criminal justice system based on public policy availed by congress and the state legislature. While the decision to treat juveniles as adults can be informed at the time of the ruling, the sentencing's ramifications are inevitable. Despite the intent to bring the best out of young offenders, imprisonment in adult facilities hinders just sentencing, intensifies recidivism, increases prison misconduct, hinders reintegration, leads to psychological adversities, escalates violence, it is financially unviable and scientifically unfounded.
Juveniles in jail face the injustices of longer sentencing. Judges have the power to determine to sentence based on culpability, perception and need to scare juveniles from committing crimes. If judges perceive young offenders as unremorseful and dangerous, they impose long sentences to correctional facilities (Jordan & Brittani, 2016). Determining leniency based on bias other than set policies leads to imprisonment in facilities that judges perceive to be hostile to the minor's culpabilities. Data collected from Maryland criminal courts reveal that juveniles were susceptible to longer prison time than adults aged 21-29 based on character, lack of remorse, and negative attitude (Jordan & Brittani, 2016). The judge's criteria ignores the external factors that influence juveniles in committing a crime, such as family, friends, and neighborhood, that forms the foundation for rehabilitation in juvenile facilities. Copp & Bales (2018) agree that jails expose young offenders to a harsh environment in the short run, which becomes difficult to treat factors that contribute to offences in the long run. The fact that jails are short-term facilities learned behavior adversely impacts reintegration. Sentencing juveniles should be based on reformation, which cannot be achieved through harsher punishments (Troutman, 2018). Lengthy judicial sentencing that does not focus on rehabilitation is punitive to young offenders in adult incarceration facilities.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Adult criminal justice experience increases the recidivism rate for young offenders. Incarcerated juveniles lose freedom, childhood experience, education, and psychological development. Owings et al. (2017) argue that young offenders fare worse at the trial stage, which leads to longer sentencing and a 75% incarceration risk rate as adults. Since juveniles are at a higher risk of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse from staff and inmates, the experience results in trauma and rebellion to comply with societal expectations (Ng et al., 2014). Harsh treatment does not equal compliance or rehabilitation, mostly when educational, psychological, and vocational services are not availed. Abrams (2013) outlines that 82% of youth in correctional facilities are rearrested within three years of release. Although longer sentences are meant to assert adult time for adult crime or as a shock approach to rectify behavior, it intensifies offences. According to Jordan & Brittani (2016), convicted adolescents in correctional facilities have a 21% recidivism rate than offenders in the juvenile system. As the rates reveal, the cost of housing juveniles in the correctional systems yield poor outcomes by resulting in more harm than good.
Juveniles determine the prevalence of misconduct in prisons and jails. Adult facilities create emphasis on labelling whether or not individuals are making strides to improve (Abrams, 2013). For juveniles who face various problems such as poverty, substance abuse, and mental abuse, limited access to guidance provokes defense mechanisms within the correctional systems. Two-thirds of adolescents in jail are yet to be convicted, which becomes a risk to jeopardize mental wellness and relationships (Copp & Bales, 2018). Unlike prisons, which hold offenders based on conviction status, jails have a vast cohort of people from varying backgrounds, offences, and culpabilities. Copp & Bales (2018) suggest that a punitive environment encourages violence due to association, trauma, abuse, and substance abuse. For juveniles in adult jails, the suicide rate is eight times higher than for youth in juvenile facilities (Jordan & Brittani, 2016). The severity of violence witnessed or engaged in correlates with prison violence that juveniles are willing to perpetrate. Although there are strides to reduce violence due to sexual victimization through the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), American jails have proven that safety for juvenile inmates is not guaranteed. Since local facilities do not have a 5% penalty on grant money if they fail to adhere to PREA guidelines, young offenders do not get the protection needed through PREA oversight (Owings et al., 2017). With an impulsive capacity and exposure to victimization, young offenders influence misconduct in adult incarceration facilities.
Incarceration of juveniles in adult prisons limits productive opportunities, which hinders reintegration. Young offenders in adult facilities do not have adequate access to rehabilitative programs (Ng et al., 2014). Without educational services for self-improvement, juveniles do not get the developmental growth needed to reintegrate back to the communities. According to Owings et al. (2017), most juveniles are school dropouts with social needs who display behavioral problems when the demands are not met. However, adult prisons lack the individualized non-punitive treatment that is availed in juvenile facilities for numerous reasons. For instance, in Michigan, budget constraints in prison facilities mean that young offenders' needs are not prioritized (Nge et al., 2014). In adult criminal facilities, the offenders are persons of all ages, mental capacities and maturity levels that are incomparable to juveniles. Without education, training, and psychological help, the encounters between the young and older adults do not benefit young offenders when released from confinement. To save on human resources, the juveniles acquire skills based on institutional maintenance such as building, grounds care, and cooking, which are not good enough for reintegration (Owings et al., 2017). Without skills and psychological development, young adults in prisons and jails do not thrive in the real world.
Young offenders in adult facilities are at risk of suffering from depression due to aggressive treatment. Housing in federal prisons and jails exposes juveniles to significant mistreatment by adult criminals with different developmental maturity. As such, the depression rates severity ranges from 5% to 61% in the course of incarceration (Ng et al., 2013). The deterioration in mental health exposes individuals and the prison community to unstable mental wellness. Adult facilities are prone to harsher punishments and bullying from staff and older offenders, a mentally draining process to function in a solitary institution. For incarcerated young offenders in adult facilities, they are more likely to commit suicide than those in juvenile facilities who committed less serious offences (Ng et al., 2014). The differences are attributed to an individual's negative association with the crime, alienation from family, stigmatization and bullying in the system. The imprisonment exposes juveniles to physical and sexual abuse leading to a depressive mental state Failure to focus on reintegration alleviates psychological strains.
Evidence indicates that youth offenders in adult facilities are prone to violence than those in juvenile. Sentencing offenders achieve general and specific deferent impacts. Mistreatment such as beatings, sexual assault by mature inmates presents an unconducive environment for minors who are still in their development stages. Troutman (2018) suggest that hostility in correctional facilities create obstacles to deviate from violence and poor decision making associated with impulsivity. While juvenile systems have higher supervision levels, correctional facilities rely on punishment which encourages violence as a response to threatened survival (Finholt et al., 2020). However, jails do not hold inmates for long durations; in most facilities, failure to guarantee safety increases misconduct and frequency of violence. Copp & Bales (2018) argues that 8% of juveniles in jails report sexual victimization, which triggers gang violence and affiliations for survival (Copp & Bales, 2018). As young offenders, a juvenile system and adult crime facilities have contrasting staff treatment. For jail officers, they do not differentiate between juveniles and adult offenders, which magnifies resentment (Ng et al., 2013). As such, exposure to more punishment without rehabilitation leads to felonies.
The cost of housing adolescents in criminal justice institutions is not viable. Sentencing to prisons can take place within an individual's state and outside. When juveniles are sent to prisons outside their states, it becomes complicated to acquire finances for lawyers. Additionally, although the bail reform act provides an opportunity for release under the least restrictive conditions, adolescents from low-income families do not benefit from such provisions (Copp & Bales, 2018). If they are pretrial detainees, juveniles can feel the pressure to plead guilty to an offence to secure an early release. Economically, Owings et al. (2017) argue that it costs $148 767 per person per year for juveniles in adult detention systems. Since the results of adult confinement for juveniles lead to more adversity than good, the taxpayer caters to recidivism. Owings et al. (2017) suggest that youths' associated costs in correctional, lost future earnings and health costs amount to $8 to $ 21 billion annually. In a justice system where money plays a central role in representation, lack of finances can determine the length of sentences and deprive young offenders of their liberty.
The treatment of juveniles as adults is scientifically unfounded considering the developmental maturity. Adolescents possess low levels of self-control to appreciate the consequences of their actions. When their development is forced to occur in hostile correctional facilities, they become less likely to assess social, physical, financial, and legal risks. Abrams (2013) argues that adolescents do not have a full capacity of their frontal lobe, which leads to difficulties in risk management and strategic thinking. Housing such persons with fully developed adults increase imbalances and deter the growth stages. Troutman (2018) agrees that adult facilities disregard the limbic system, motivating juveniles to seek higher novelty levels. In sentencings, adolescents are susceptible to muscle memory's adversities, which impacts the type of imprisonment. Finholt et al. (2020) argue that in North Carolina, the inertia selection model revealed that once the county opted for a specific imprisonment option, it made it possible to imprison youngsters in the same manner. If muscle memory influences juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentencing, the harsher the sentences in subsequent cases (Troutman, 2020). When they are involved in misconduct or engaged with serious offenders, they act based on impulsivity and not critical thinking. Finholt et al. (2020) argue that in cases where there have been two prior JLWOP, the probability of a minor's imprisonment rises to 62.1%.
Conclusively, throughout history, punishment for young offenders has been subject to reforms to ensure community wellness and safety. However, the imprisonment of juveniles in adult criminal systems has proven to yield more adversities in minimizing delinquency cases. Despite differences in offences, processing adolescents as adults minimizes their chances of rehabilitation, fair sentencing and exposes them to violence. While the juvenile system is rehabilitative, adult facilities are more punitive, which increases disorderly behavior in jails and prisons. Imprisonment of juveniles’ correctional facilities is a hindrance to their mental health and reintegration. Also, young offenders are subject to judge’s bias which contributes to unjust sentences. Therefore, focusing on reforms that prohibits prosecution of juveniles as adults in all states is necessary.
References
Abrams, L. (2013). Juvenile justice at a crossroads: science, evidence, and twenty-first-century Reform. Social service review , 87(4), 725-752.
Copp, J., & Bales, W. (2018). Jails and local justice system reform: overview and recommendations. The future of children , 28(1), 103-124. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26641549
Finholt, B., Garret, B., Modjadidi, K., & Renberg, K. (2020). Juvenile life without parole in North Carolina. Journal of criminal law and criminology . 110(2).
Jordan, K. L., & McNeal, B. A. (2016). Juvenile penalty or leniency: Sentencing of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 40(4), 387.
Ng, I. Y., Shen, X., Sim, H., Sarri, R. C., Stoffregen, E., & Shook, J. J. (2013). Incarcerating juveniles in adult prisons as a factor in depression. Criminal behaviour and mental health: CBMH , 21(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.78
Ng, I., Sarri, R., Shook, J., & Stoffregen, E. (2014). Comparison of correctional services for youth incarcerated in adult and juvenile facilities in Michigan. The Prison Journal . 92. 460-483.
Owings, W., Ellison, J., & Kaplan, L. (2017). State fiscal effort and juvenile incarceration rates: are we misdirecting our investment in human capital? Journal of education finance .64 (1), 1-60
Troutman, B. (2018). A more just system of juvenile justice: Creating a new standard of accountability for Juveniles in Illinois. Journal of criminal law and criminology . 108(1), 197-221.
