The rise of minor offenders and the influence of irresponsibility raised concerns among American agitators in the nineteenth-century. These activities led to the establishment of juvenile courts. The juvenile courts treated children differently from adult offenders. On behalf of the felonious youths, American child psychiatry was created to help the juvenile court achieve its rehabilitative goals. However, revolutionary supreme court verdicts and legislations made between 1966 and 1975 evolved the juvenile system to resemble criminal adult courts. An increase in youthful criminal activities forced society to handle capital punishment for adolescents and transfer them to adult courts. In today's juvenile systems, a psychiatrist's participation is encouraged because of their proficiency in development. This paper discusses the concerns to abolish the juvenile court, the strength and weakness of the authors' arguments, and the article's contribution to the field of juvenile justice.
Main Point, Strengths, and Weaknesses
Even though juvenile courts were modeled to be rehabilitative, there was little protection afforded to the youths. Soulier and Scott (2010) call for abolishing juvenile courts since the constitutional protections that funded underage offenders had begun to look like those in adult felonious court. In 1966, the utmost court decided over a minor case for the first time. The trial involved Kent v. the United States. The case raised whether it was by the constitution for a juvenile court to transfer a case to an adult criminal court with no proper procedures and protection of the youth's lawful interest. According to the authors, severe sentences are offered within the adult prison system. The underage offender was 16 years when he was charged with robbery, rape, and breaking into his neighbor's house. Kent was detained and interrogated in the absence of a lawyer. Also, he was never well-versed in his rights to remain silent. Despite the efforts of his attorney's motion, a waiver hearing was never held.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Supreme Court further gave an unfair trial in the Gault case of 1967. Gerald was 15 years when the accuser and his acquaintance made a lustful character call to a neighbor. During his detention, his parents were unaware until the next day. Furthermore, he was not represented by a counsel, the victim was absent in court, and no evidence was presented before the judge. If an adult was convicted of the same offense, he could have been sentenced to two months in jail or fined $50 (Soulier & Scott, 2010). The authors call for abolishing the juvenile court system because the adult system has taken its functions, and the underage offenders are not tried as required.
In the article, Juveniles in court, Soulier and Scott argue that after a youthful offender is subjected to a detention hearing 24 hours after being arrested. During the trial, the court holds the offender in custody without bail ahead of his trial. An additional restriction to a minor's lawful defenses involves the right to a jury trial. According to the authors, the juvenile courts have not been serving their purpose of rehabilitating the offenders. Instead, juveniles are incarcerated as adults. Although the juvenile system is supposed to act as a children's prison, the minor offenders have a minimal repetition rate than adults in adult prisons (Lehmann et al., 2018). Youth detained in adult reformatories have a higher chance of committing future crimes. Children come out of adult prisons with more knowledge of the criminal world than obtaining help to change for the better.
Agreeing with the Article
I strongly agree with the authors' argument. Minors are not given the same rights as adults in courts. For example, in the case of McKeiver v. Pennsylvania in 1976. McKeiver was 16 years when he was charged with burglary and owned stolen goods. For adult criminals with the same offense, they can request a jury trial (Feld, 2019). Upon McKeiver's attorney's request for an adjudication trial, the juvenile court declined the appeal. According to the supreme court, a jury trial was not compulsory for children. These young offenders need different treatment from adults because their thinking is not matured, and they cannot be held responsible for their acts.
Contribution and Implication
This article calls for a change in juvenile justice. Not all minor offenders will be helped through punishment and solitary imprisonment. The juvenile system should balance both rehabilitation support and punishment when sentencing the youths. Once in a criminal court, a minor can receive longer jail terms that will deny him the right to vote and get his name in the criminal books, which will later be used against him. Reforming the juvenile justice system will have a positive impact on youths.
If the authors' suggestions are followed, judges in the juvenile courts will be more flexible when sentencing them than in an adult system. With the help of a child psychiatrist, the judges will determine the type of punishment or service each juvenile gets based on their age, nature of their crimes, and environment. According to research conducted on delinquent juveniles' assessment, 75% of minor lawbreakers have diagnosable psychiatric conditions, and 50% have a stern substance abuse disorder (Soulier & Scott, 2010). Considering these facts, convicting a juvenile will prevent the risk of suicide for children in juvenile facilities. The implications would be beneficial not only to society but also to the juvenile systems.
References
Feld, B. C. (2019). The evolution of the juvenile court: Race, politics, and the criminalizing of juvenile justice (Vol. 4). NYU Press.
Lehmann, P. S., Chiricos, T., & Bales, W. D. (2018). Juveniles on trial: Mode of conviction and the adult court sentencing of transferred juveniles. Crime & Delinquency , 64 (5), 563-586.
Soulier, M. F., & Scott, C. L. (2010). Juveniles in court. Harvard review of psychiatry , 18 (6), 317-325.
