Criminal Justice

1- In your original discussion post, I require that you cite at least two pieces of concrete evidence. This means that you need to cite, at least twice, from a source in this class: the textbook, media shared in “Connecting it to the real world” or optional articles in “Connecting it to research.” I require this because I want your discussions to be based on evidence – I want your responses to be substantive. Further, this is a 400-level class where we are reading, writing, and thinking about research in a concrete manner. When asked to support your positions, please cite correctly to avoid plagiarizing and to receive full credit.

2- This assignment aligns with all Module 6 Learning Objectives.

In this module, we’ve been studying the juvenile court process. As you’ve learned, sometimes youth are sometimes transferred to adult court and when this occurs, it has serious consequences for the youth, as well as society. When do you think youth should be transferred to adult court and why? If you do not believe that they should ever be transferred, how should the most serious offenders be handled in juvenile court, and why? Try to develop a policy that would work for juvenile transfer, or non-transfer, for all youth. For example, your policy might include age restrictions, offense restrictions, competency requirements, a combination of the previous, or complete judicial discretion on a case-by-case basis. What is most important is how you support your decision. Please support your claims with evidence.

ANSWER

Juvenile Court Process

Transferring juveniles to adult prison should be prohibited in the United States. The proposition of trying juveniles as adults solicit very pressing questions. Why should a child be tried as an adult? Why would a child be blocked from holding a driver’s license, consuming alcohol, voting in elections yet treated as an adult in the criminal justice system? Statistics from 15 states revealed that 82% of juveniles prosecuted in adult courts and later released from state incarceration were rearrested compared to 16% percent of adults from the same states. Statistics indicate that juveniles prosecuted in adult courts had higher recidivism rates than those who matched in juvenile court. Studies have revealed that juveniles prosecuted in juvenile courts have benefited from the outcomes of the training opportunities in those institutions. They have gained critical skills, competencies, and experience crucial to their success once they become adults (Steinberg, 2017).

Juveniles should be treated like the young children they are and the focus of the judicial process should be rehabilitating them rather than simply being tough on crime and punishing them (Slobogin, 2013). Prosecutors and judges should be compelled by law to consider juvenile cases in juvenile courts and if convicted take them through the juvenile correction system. Proposition 57 that passed in California in 2016 prohibited direct filling and compelled prosecutors to seek approvals from judges before transferring juveniles to adult courts (Sago, 2017). Despite the positive results that the law brought, reformers are still seeking further reforms to phase out transfers altogether. Legal guidelines of sentencing and rehabilitation process should be codified in the law to remove the often misused discretion from the criminal justice system. States should collect data on where juveniles end up in the criminal justice system since Pew Research found out that 1 in 4 states do not report this crucial data. The juvenile criminal justice system should be equipped to deal with all juvenile cases and spare young Americans from the dread of going through the adult criminal justice system.

References

Sago, R. (2017, August 8). Charging Youths as Adults Can Be A ‘Cruel Wake-Up Call.’ Is There Another Way? NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2017/08/15/542609000/sentenced-to-            adulthood-direct-file-laws-bypass-juvenile-justice-system

Slobogin, C. (2013). Treating juveniles like juveniles: Getting rid of transfer and expanded adult court jurisdiction. Tex. Tech L. Rev., 46, 103.

Steinberg, L. (2017). Adolescent brain science and juvenile justice policymaking. Psychology,                 Public Policy, and Law, 23(4), 410.