The other legal challenge facing the waiver system is the fact that there is conflicting interpretations of the law by different states and therefore some states may treat offenders differently from others therefore causing unfairness in how criminals in the United States of America are treated. The above legal and social challenges have led to the preference of indeterminate sentencing to determinate sentencing considering that it upholds human dignity and rests a lot of power on law enforcers to determine the fate of the juvenile offenders.
Transferring juveniles to the adult level courts has been advocated for a very long time but has intensified in the past few decades. Advocates of this transfer system cite reduction of juvenile justice costs as their key reason behind such proposition. Therefore, proponents of transfer of juveniles to the adult level adults are motivated by financial implications of having a two tier justice system whereby adult cases are handled by separate courts from those which handle juvenile courts.
Proponents of a transfer of juveniles to adult courts also cite the duplication of duties due to the fact that law enforcers can be trained to function in a multisectoral approach. Therefore duplication of courts just serves to burden the taxpayers and do not necessarily contribute to enhanced efficiency, they argue. There is a need for a review of the main challenges facing the juvenile justice system in order to make sure that whatever alternative is chosen it addresses the key concerns of the juvenile justice system.
The alternatives of transferring the juvenile system to the adult courts lie only in the strengthening of the structures in the present juvenile courts so as to make them responsive to the same concerns which lead to the calls of the transferring of the juveniles to the adult courts. The deliberations surrounding the treatment of juveniles with sentences such as indeterminate sentencing and policies such as punishing juveniles as adults do not necessarily imply that the criminal justice system in the United States has come to full circle.
All it implies is the fact that, in its very nature, the process of justice is dynamic and constantly requires flexibility to address the emerging social and legal challenge in the best and satisfactory way possible. Group 2 answers Brenda’s decision to join Ms- 13 gang can be attributed to her upbringing and mannerism while in El Salvador as from the history provided, it is evident that Brenda did not hitherto coming to the U. S, have a criminal record.
The negligence, and lack of parental guidance and possibly lack of parental love and care are all to blame for her certain change of heart and the subsequent decisions to indulge in criminal activities at such a tender age. According to the United States juvenile justice act, Brenda’s criminal activities and actions are punishable in the United States of America under the juvenile justice system which is responsible for sentencing juveniles caught in criminal offences.
It is clear that the criminal justice system, which is responsible for adult crimes, may not have strong case against Brenda’s parents who are currently on the wrong due to negligence on their child. However, the mandate to prosecute the parents on the grounds of negligence is for another department in the justice system to deal with but evidently not the juvenile justice system. It does not have any business prosecuting the parents.
In this case and many others where parents contribute to their children engaging in criminal behaviour, the juveniles bear the full consequences associated with the crime. The criminal justice takes no meaningful measures to link the parents to the crime of the juveniles. This has led child rights activists to raise concerns about the fact that some children end up in crime as a result of social factors arising from the environment they are brought up in.