In many instances, children have been described as the holders of the future generation. In many countries like for instance America, juveniles invoke the act of fear. The ate perceived to be a representation violence, a section in the community that lacks self control and ethical devoid, on top of being the failures of families in instilling traditional values including them , is respect for human life and respect for others. Fearing crime, particularly random violence that most younger's engages in, is the greatest concern of many nations. This has acted as a motivating factor for many young individuals to move out of their lifestyles, undertake self-defense training, installation of home security systems and usually walk with handguns to protect themselves. Fearing criminals has caused many rich people on top of politicians take options of conserving the justice systems, which punishes and deters or even holding promises concerning juvenile crimes. Waiving youngsters to criminal courts and impinging penalties according to some individuals' position, are to some people viewed as efficient means of expressing outrage by the society to control juvenile crimes. On the other hand, others have when juveniles are treated as adults is a harsh penalty. Though many of these youths incarcerate crimes that the low give permission, they are in most cases victims of rape, among others. This essay discusses the whether juvenile offenders have to be tried and punished as adults. According to my own analysis, the act will do more harm than good.
Buy Juvenile Offenders essay paper online
The controversies that exist in the current times, just surrounds waivers, which appears to be because of two factors at least. The first states that, childhood definition and the appropriateness of age behaviors that are in a flux state. Juveniles are seen as being predisposed towards violence more than in the past. This notion is highly supported by national crime data sources. According to the mass media, the violence committed by juvenile individuals, has reached the highest point ever in the world's history. Individuals have become more afraid of falling victims to a generation that purportedly more than ever before.
The traditional, the criteria of selecting juveniles to be waived, were the age and seriousness of the offense. Many of the cases that have been waived to criminal court are only serious offenses, for instance murder cases and drug offenses. There are offenses that involve serious personal jury, crimes of properties and public order offenses, and public order offenses, which at all do not fall under any jurisdiction of juvenile courts. In addition, some states have permitted waiving of juveniles if the current charge they hold is a felony, on top of which there exist evidence of felony earlier to felony convictions. Moreover, many nations have created some provisions that permits waiving of juveniles to criminal courts if there exist reasons to make concerned parties belief that the victim is not amenable to any kind of treatment (Hoge & Boxer, 2008).
The process of waiving children to criminal court in most cases justified on the reasons that; the offenders deserve a more punitive criminal court sanctions and that the approach of getting tough approaches in the process of fighting crime will serve the purpose of preventing such like a criminal conduct in future (Sickmund & Synder, 1990). Many research has given rise to mixed reactions concerning the idea of juveniles are harshly sentenced by criminal courts and have less chances for recidivating. Most of these studies have indicated that waiving juvenile to criminal courts is not go through substantial punitive sanctions. They state that, that such juvenile will have a probability of being provided with probation in place of incarceration. Among those who have been incarcerated, are given terms of confinement as compared to who are offered with juvenile court. As if not being enough, research has shown that, waiving juveniles to criminal court have lower probability of recidivating, than those sanctioned in a juvenile court.
Some peoples are against the idea the juvenile should be given a second chance and feel that they should be locked up underneath the jail cell and the key should be thrown away.
This is because they feel that morality is something you are born with and is not a learned behavior and for that reason, they feel the criminal minded juveniles' cannot and will not ever be able to be rehabilitated. They also feel that just because they are juveniles does not make it right and does not give justice to the memories of juveniles victims.
It has been argued that, the methods that are used by justice system, in responding to unlawful conducts may never be determined in vacuum. Hence, it reflects the attitudes of the society. Decades back, the issue of juveniles being tried in criminal court was looked upon as an option after the exhaustion of all other means. In the current times, the condition has drastically changed. The current existence of conservative environment that a part from making it acceptable. Therefore, it is expected from prosecutors and judges to act in a decisive manner by waiving particular juveniles to criminal courts, as an effect waiver are never looked upon as a last resort (Sickmund & Synder, 1990). Nevertheless, the usages of waivers have been extended so much to ensure it includes first juvenile offenders. Therefore, the process of coming up with statute that are exclusionary, needing particular juvenile offenders to be waived routinely. Hence to eliminate probability of the discretion exercise to those who understand the youths better; these are juvenile prosecutors and court judges. It has been estimated that exclusionary statutes have resulted to a juveniles that are waived to criminal courts as more youths offered more juvenile waived to criminal court as compared to judicial waivers and the discretion prosecutorial combined.
Juvenile's subconscious minds do not allow them to fully understand the magnitude of the crime. Juveniles are still very young and with the apprioate counseling can be redirected and taught better ways of making choices and better techniques of living a more healthy social life. Juveniles' lack the cognitive level of the crimes that they commit there for should not be tried and punished as adults.
It is much true that, judging juveniles to criminal courts does not provide any answer to crime conditions. It needs to be known that waivers provide short-term solutions to a complex problem. In this method, public desires for retribution will be satisfied. After all many of the juveniles waived just like adults, criminal courts will under go society stigmatization by the use of criminal label and having a higher probability of them becoming even more dangerous as than they were in the beginning. This particularly holds water for youths who have been already been in prison together with the adults. Therefore, it is upon the decision makers to make decisions that consider all life dimensions. In doing so, they will bind themselves to those presenting greater risks to the society.
The intervention of juvenile courts, promises transformation of youths who tent to be much troubled into adults that bide to law. Basing on the numerous results from many studies, juvenile courts have proposed multifaceted strategies for dealing with youthful offenders. Primarily, parents have e responsibility of instilling in their children with redeeming morals and values. It will be good, if parental classes are much important. When parents lack moral, ability and maturity to enhance socialization in their children properly.
Social institutions need to be supported socially. Responsible youths are positively influenced in schools, and even in schools. These institutions impinge laws and morality to children. Another method is the promotion of delinquency prevention. Society has to be proactive to the youths, having the risks of committing criminal acts. Though youths are entitled to life which is governed by law, therefore it's the responsibility of social institutions to ensure they engage children in activities which support law biding behaviors.
Another method could be identifying and controlling serious juvenile offenders. Those youngsters, that has not being responding to traditional juvenile court inputs, need to be secluded in secure facilities for society protection. However, this technique applies to be good only to non-violent offenders.
In conclusion, many individuals do not like the notion of coming up with other alternatives apart from waivers of criminal court. Instituting community responses to juvenile crimes requires support of the whole society for it to be successful. Therefore, more effort needs to be put in placed to deal with juvenile offenders, other than depending on judging juvenile offenders just like adults. It is also more promising to return children to their rightful and natural positioning as a greatest resources and better future hopes.