There are very few states in the United States that extend the right to a jury of their peers for juveniles. Why shouldn’t juveniles be able to stand a trial with a jury of their peers? By law, minors are incapable of representing themselves or making decisions that are based on the current law presiding for the circumstances. Which basically means that juveniles are only children, children that don’t really know what responsibility or breaking the law is yet.
Plus a juvenile’s record is private so if they stood in front of a jury then it wouldn’t be so private now would it? Also, juveniles aren’t convicted for the offenses they engage in, they are convicted for the delinquent actions as a minor. The two exceptions, that I myself have found, are either if the crime is serious enough to try the juvenile as an adult or, as said earlier, the state allows juveniles a trial in which a jury is present.
I chose this reason because many people do not understand that juveniles are children, not adults. These days parents treat their children as adults so the children commit crimes as if they were an adult. That being said, people need to realize that juveniles are exactly that. Although they have been taught things about the community, the world, laws, right/wrong, and so forth, they haven’t actually lived to understand all these things so why should they be tried by a jury of peers that don’t understand that fact?
This brings me to the next question, why do I believe there are differences in the adult and juvenile justice system and why do I believe so? The answer is basically what I’ve just stated in this whole discussion. Juveniles are children, children who hasn’t actually lived enough in this world to “know”. Adults “know better”. So does it make any sense to try people in the court of law whom don’t know any better the same as a person who does know?