Some of the most prominent Americans are on record as having broken the law or committed a crime as children. Had they been caught and punished for these crimes, their exponential contributions to the nation may never have been realized. The understanding that children should not have to carry the burden of the mistakes they make in their youth is the basis for the juvenile criminal justice system. This system has a remote semblance to the ordinary criminal justice system (Pollock, 2017). However, the treatment of juveniles is relatively lenient and designed to ensure better outcomes for youthful offenders. To a start, even the titles vary through the avoidance of words such as crime, conviction, and prison. Instead, the children are adjudged as delinquent as sent to youth rehabilitation facilities. There are variations to the general rules that apply to juvenile offenders, mainly since most elements of the criminal justice system are state-based (Pollock, 2017). For example, some states have provisions for trying juveniles as adult offenders under some circumstances. Similarly, the juvenile system faces some challenges such as racism and classism, which places some juveniles at a disadvantage. The juvenile justice system is essential for the protection of children against the recurring impact of childhood mistakes into their adulthoods. While the US system has made great strides, it still needs reformation and improvement .There is no record of a formal juvenile justice system in America before 1899. The state of Illinois enacted the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899, leading to the advent of the first formal Juvenile Court in America, situated in Chicago (National Research Council, 2001). The court handled cases dealing with the welfare of children, such as neglect, homelessness, and abuse. The same court also addressed issues where children had broken the law. Some of the critical components of the modern juvenile system trace back to this futuristic Illinois approach. For example, the law provided a minimum age for charging a child with a crime, 12 years of age (National Research Council, 2001). The court also provided for in-camera proceedings and sealed records to prevent the embarrassment or stigmatization of the minor. Finally, the Illinois Act took a rehabilitative as opposed to a punitive approach towards juvenile justice. In the early 20 th century, several other states enacted their respective versions of Juvenile laws, including Maine and Wyoming. Unfortunately, the initial benign approach of the juvenile system did not last. Within a few decades of its initiation, parents and complainant flooded the juvenile system. Unlike modern parents and other adults, the early 20 th century parents and adults were keen on reporting their children to the authorities (National Research Council, 2001). After all, children had erstwhile faced the adult criminal justice system when they broke the law, hence the juvenile system was seen as a softer option. As more reports flooded the system, probation departments found themselves handling as many as two hundred cases per officer. The courts also faced massive workloads and backlogs. Gradually, the system began to change, and judges and probation officers adopted stunner and more aggressive measures to keep juveniles in check (National Research Council, 2001). By the mid-19 th century, the juvenile justice system had transformed into a harsh system that provided little justice for juveniles. Through a collection of prime decisions, the Supreme Court of the United States established some safeguards for children in the juvenile system. In the case of Kent v. the United States , the Supreme Court provided that juveniles were entitled to the due procedure before being transferred to the adult court system. More importantly, in the case of re Gault (387 U.S. 1, 1967), the Supreme Court held that juveniles have the same procedural rights in criminal procedures as adults (National Research Council, 2001). The case of Breed v. Jones then extended the protections of double jeopardy as provided for in the Fifth Amendment to juveniles. Under this provision, states could not charge adults afresh with crimes that had already been addressed under the juvenile system. However, in the 1971 case of McKeiver v. Pennsylvania , the Supreme Court held that Juveniles were not entitled to the full adversarial system that includes a jury trial (National Research Council, 2001). States could develop modalities for trying and establishing the guilt or innocence of juveniles through processes such as bench trials. The juvenile criminal process if mainly congruent with the adult criminal procedure but with provisions for the protection of children. The case begins with a report by the victim of a crime or the apprehension of a juvenile while breaking the law (Pollock, 2017). Typically, this section falls under law enforcement. The police officer handling the case has the discretion of giving the juvenile a warning and ending the proceedings. If the case proceeds, the police officer will alert the Child Protective Services (CPS). The primary mandate of the CPS is to ensure the best interests of the child in the process. Once again, the CPS has the discretion to end the proceedings if it is in the best interest of the child. If the situation warrants it, the CPS will recommend that the case proceeds to the juvenile court (Pollock, 2017). Most juvenile courts are a combination of formal and relatively amicable processes that seek to establish the guilt or innocence of a child without a heightened focus on technicalities. Formalities include rules of evidence and allowing fundamental rights to the child. However, regarding issues such as how to formally address the court and other procedural provisions, the juvenile court is relatively informal.
Further, as held in the Supreme Court in the case of re Gault (1967), the juvenile judge does not have to be an independent arbiter superintending over an adversarial system. Typically, the judge leans towards ensuring the best interest of the child and will attempt to give the juvenile every benefit of the doubt. If there is sufficient evidence that the juvenile broke the law, the judge will proceed to adjudge the juvenile as delinquent. Juvenile courts focus on rehabilitation and training as opposed to punitive measures. Based on the judge's discretion and recommendations of CPS and probation officers, the court may place the delinquent in a youth facility for rehabilitation and training (Pollock, 2017). Finally, just as in the standard criminal justice system, the juvenile system has re-entry programs to aid juveniles who have spent time in detention. Plea bargaining is among the congruencies between the juvenile, and adult criminal justice systems that most commentators feel should be eliminated. By definition, plea bargaining happens when the prosecution and defense agree to forego a trial through a plea of guilty (Pollock, 2017). Under the system, prosecutors use a stick and carrot approach. The carrot is a lenient sentence for the defendant after pleading guilty. At the same time, the stick is the potential for aggressive prosecution and the harshest possible sentence if the defendant declines to plead guilty. Due to the case overload at the criminal justice system, a majority of criminal cases, including in the juvenile system, are determined through plea bargaining. These two essential components of the criminal justice system that are worth addressing regarding juveniles. First, in plea bargaining, the innocence or guilt of the defendants is not a factor. The defendant has to plead guilty for the system to work. This issue makes plea bargaining vulnerable to abuse by unethical professionals who seek to lessen their workloads. Secondly, plea agreements depend on the defendant's understanding and accepting the terms of the plea deal (Pollock, 2017). The common law does not expect juveniles to understand contractual obligations, let alone deals that could permanently alter their lives. Plea-deals place children in a scenario where they have to make decisions that they are too young to be making. For this reason plea, bargaining should be eliminated in juvenile cases. The most significant challenge facing the juvenile system is its human component; the officers who may make errors or employ bias in decision making. A common motif in the juvenile system is discretion. Police officers, CPS officials, and judges all have broad discretions on the fate of juveniles in the system (Pollock, 2017). Further, as outlined above, plea bargains plan immense powers of prosecutors who can determine the fate of defendants. Some unethical professionals take advantage of the discretions allowed to them to the detriment of defenders. Similarly, bias is a common problem in human decision making, and it becomes a bearing factor in decisions made in the juvenile system. Available research shows that poor or colored juveniles often have worse outcomes in the juvenile system than wealthy or white children (Isasi, 2018). Such outcomes may be caused either by a lack of ethics or the presence of bias in the professionals who work in the juvenile system.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Conclusion
Based on the research, commentary, and analysis above, the juvenile system is vital in ensuring the best interests of minors who break the law. The juvenile system protects children from having to carry the burden of their childhood mistakes into their future. Similarly, the juvenile system protects children from the complex and harsh extremities of the adult criminal justice system. However, the US juvenile system needs some adjustments and improvements. First, there is a need to eliminate the plea bargain system that places inordinate choices in the hands of children. After all, children end up in the children's court for making the wrong choices. A system that leaves the fate of such a child in its own hands is unfair and wrong. There is also a need to mitigate the impact of unethical conduct and bias in the juvenile system.
References
Isasi, R. (2018). Latin American Immigrant Juveniles in the US: an Army of Delinquents or the Victims of a Racist System?. Bridging Cultures , (3), 84-108.
National Research Council. (2001). Juvenile crime, juvenile justice . National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-06842-8
Pollock, J. (2017). Crime and Criminal Justice in America . Taylor & Francis.
