Currently the move by the public is for the government to abolish the juvenile court whose initial intention is been outdone by a current motive of criminalizing the youth. It should rather seek to be a protective device rather than subjecting the youth to these criminal accusations. Human activists have argued that, the psychology in the development of youth would be an undermining factor for any offence done by the youth. Either, the aspect of changing welfare in social perspective should couple for the change in the policies about the crimes done by youth rather than the aspect of subjecting the youth to quit criminal systems.
If justice is to be maintained, the current motive of the juvenile court should be reinstated to focus on the traditional motive of rehabilitation. It should also address about how to deal with the changing social economic policies and how the juvenile court should address them rather than using these changes as vibrant catalysts to instituting criminal penalties by the juvenile courts. Either way, the state government should dwell on subjecting all offenders of crimes in the same criminal court which has separated legal capacities to address on young defendants.
Feld, (1997) argues that “A state could try all the offenders in one integrated criminal court, albeit with modifications to respond to the youthfulness of young defendants. ” (p1) Despite the fact that juvenile law was made to separate criminal laws between the adult people and the children, it has continued to impose quite restrictive laws compared even to the adult criminal courts. The establishment of juvenile court led to the change in the official set up of the court, whereby, the ethics of the court changed in order to attract the rehabilitative aspects of the juvenile court.
A specialized and trained person was employed for officiating in the formal issues of the juvenile court. Usually the candidate to act as a judge was to have been trained as social scientist so that her social character and knowledge would help to make good decisions about the rehabilitative requirements of offenders. The judges would then pass sentences in regard to the crime done by the offender. The court also attempts the best to ensure of equality between the treatment of the children from the country and the children from the other countries.
Feld (1997), “Juvenile courts provided a coercive mechanism to discriminate between our children and other people’s children”. It was made to use different judgment factors to make judgment to their children. Since the time of Gault, the United States juvenile courts have undergone through, some changes, its core discipline has changed thus been more of a criminal court. The current court subject punitive punishment to the young people which are more or less the same on what the adults are been subjected to in the adult courts.
Hereby, the juvenile courts have failed to perform the former purpose, rather, they have changed the status offenses committed by the youth to more of more of misconduct and criminal allegations that have subject to more of criminal penalties. This is to say that, they have lost the role of rehabilitation and forced the youth to more of criminal dictations. Either the current changes in the juvenile courts system has focused to a more adult persons criminal place.
The way of judgment by the judges is through evaluating whether the offender is a delinquent or faced with an incidence of crime, where they make assessment upon hearing the case. Makers of legislation normally uses the victims age bracket and the criteria of the offense to make boundaries between adult and juvenile and if possible for them to minimize the punishment between the two groups. Due to the increased efforts of cracking down offenses the youths have been forced to graduating more to the adult class than the former vision of the juvenile court.
Hereby, law makers have continued to make transfers of the youth from the juvenile courts to the adult criminal courts. This is intended to make them to face a penalty of a longer and greater sentences which almost equal to those of the adults. However, the sentences subject to the youth vary constantly with the type of criminal offense the youth will have committed. The procedural justice which is done in the juvenile court has changed considerably since the times of Gault due to the changes in the procedural make up of the court formalities.
Since then, the changes have been focused on changing the more rehabilitative court system to one that fosters more punitive punishments. Many states have therefore declined from providing safeguards to the youth but rather subjecting them to more uncompromising penalties. The youth has failed to have jury trial however much it is of importance when the state seeks legislations that increase authorities and penalties of the juvenile courts. (Bremner, 1922. p 86). Either, many of the youth have been unable to access the required counsel, in their allegations in the juvenile courts.
Therefore, the court has continued to fail in the performance of its core duty but has changed its governance to more adult criminal court legislation system. If its mission of development is to be accomplished, the states should focus more on returning back at former mission of the juvenile courts rather than subject the youth to more of criminal allegations. The youth should not be subjected to stringent criminal measures but should rather be subjected to a plane of rehabilitation which focuses on them adjusting back to their former good way of life.
The juvenile court system should ensure that, its judges are well versed with social justice and this should seek to employ officials with high social knowledge and competence. Either, social status should not dictate the manner in which penalties are to be subjected to youth who have commuted crimes.
Field, B. (1999). Bad Kids, Race and Transformation of the Juvenile Court. New York, Oxford University Press. United States Tariff Commission (1993) United States, New York, West Publishing Company. Larry, G. and Miller, R. 4th Edition (2007). Criminal Justice in Action.
London, Thomson Wordsworth Publishing Company. Lawyers Co-operate Publishing Company (1976). UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REPORTS, United States, Lawyers. Co-operate Pub. Co. Beard, B. (1934). Juvenile Probation: Boston, America Book Company. Reifen, D. (1972). The Juvenile in a changing society. Philadelphia University, Pennsylvania Press. Field, B. (1997). Abolish the Juvenile Court: Youthfulness, criminal, responsibility and sentencing policy. Journal on Criminal Law and Criminology, 88 pg1-2. Bremner, R. (1922). The Juvenile Court, New York, Ayer Publishing Company.