Juvenile crime is one of the biggest debates in the criminal justice system today. There are lots of proposals that are targeted in abolishing the juvenile court and transferring all juvenile cases towards adult courts. The usual argument of these proponents is the lack of effectiveness of Juvenile Courts in curtailing the crimes of juveniles. There is an increase in the number of juvenile offenders in the United States, which is viewed as a problem of loss of deterrence effect of the Juvenile Court. There are however several points that should be considered on the need to maintain a different perspective when it comes to juvenile crime and avoid looking at juvenile crime as similar to adult crimes.

The first point that should be considered is the culpability of juvenile in committing crimes. An issue for example, is the capital punishment assigned for juveniles aged 16 and 17 who committed capital offenses. According to American Medical Association developmental biology research has shown that adolescent brains are not yet fully developed. This would mean capacity in relation to the responsibility over a crime is still in the process of development at age 16 and 17. Juvenile offenders are not morally culpable as adults and therefore they should not be treated in a similar manner to adult criminals. Wyoming and South Dakota has recently integrated developmental biology findings in their decision to ban capital punishment for juvenile offenders. Research on developmental biology has shown that underdeveloped brains would have less degree of control over their “impulse control, decision-making, and reasoning” compared to the adult brain.

This underdeveloped brain should be considered in the process of assessing juvenile offenses. The inability of juvenile to make an effective decision regarding their course of action should mean that they are not yet fully responsible in their criminal acts. There is a need therefore to consider juvenile offenders as completely different from adult offenders. Abigail Baird of Harvard Medical School emphasized that: “teens are really bad at the kind of thinking that requires looking into the future to see the results of actions, a characteristic that feeds increased risk-taking”.

Juvenile offenders are not small adults and therefore they should not be treated as equal with adult offenders. There is a need for legal and correctional staff that has massive experience with juvenile offenses. The implication of treating juvenile offenders as adult criminals would mean including them as part of adult prison population. This would affect their development in the process and thus could reinforce anti-social and criminal behaviors in their adulthood. This should be considered in the process of arguing for treating juvenile offenders as adults (Krisberg, 2005).

Another important point that should be evaluated in proposing for juvenile offenders’ treatment as adult criminals is the potential of the juvenile offender to change. The development of the child should be considered. The young age would mean that their perspectives still be changed and therefore, they could still be molded with the right perspective. This unique circumstance of juveniles means that there should be different structure in dealing with juveniles and they should not be integrated into adult court.

The separation of juvenile justice system is the recognition that youth have a difference circumstances than adults and are undergoing some difficult stages of adolescence filled with peer pressure and confusion about the realities of the world and therefore there is a need to create a separate legal system that would foster better understanding of the youth. In addition to this, there is also a need to consider that their decisions as minors are still based on lack of judgment and therefore could still be reformed and altered. The juvenile justice system is premised on the need for the state to protect minors from the perpetuation of criminal activities. Highly based on the findings of psychologists about the development stages of young people, the justice system recognized that they should be treated differently under the law and they must be directed towards more rehabilitative system of justice in order to alter their offending behaviors (The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act).

There should be a separate system of justice for juveniles or for young people. There is a need to recognize that there are really lots of issues and struggles that young people encounter at these difficult development stages. The building of identity is a difficult process. There is a need to feel belongingness to a certain group in order to enhance self-esteem and hence the pressure is higher, which could sometimes lead to delinquent behaviors. The justice system should recognize that young people have a different kind of judgment, which is usually based on the approval of the group.

In addition to this, it is also very important for the justice system to recognize that young people have little control over their situation and therefore they lack the capacity to alter their direction. If they came from a difficult family, delinquent behavior may become their form of escape due to lack of capabilities to alter their situation. This is something that adults have the capacity to deal with and therefore there is a need to have a separate legal system.

One important concept in the perspective on juvenile justice system is the concept of deinstitutionalization. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 is in fact focused on the need for a deinstitutionalization of juvenile offenders. The goal is to limit the transfer of juvenile to secured detention facilities. The justice system must ensure to exhaust all means in order to keep the young offender away from detention on correctional facilities.

There are lots of cases of that has a positive impact on the perspective of juvenile justice system. The Gault v. United States for example has started to emphasize the due process rights of juvenile offenders as stated in the 14th Amendment. This means that the due process rights of an adult offender should also be applied in juvenile cases. This could also be shown in the case of Fare v. Michael. The case of Breed v. Jones however clarified the application of Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment emphasizing that the exposure of the offender in the juvenile court is valid as court proceeding in lieu of potential risk and double trial over the same offense (Breed v. Jones). In the case of McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court emphasizes that juvenile offenders are not actually entitled to Sixth Amendment Jury Trial. The case of Davis v. Alaska protects the juvenile offender from being exposed as a juvenile offender in court proceedings as this would be in conflict with the confidentiality clause and it exposes the witness to risk that the court is trying to avoid, which is social stigma. In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O, the court clarified the role of the school in juvenile cases, specifically emphasizing that the Fourth Amendment structures should always be considered.

There are several problems that could be seen in the way juvenile courts are handling juvenile cases. There is a need to see the increase in the level of juvenile offenders that are due to violent crimes. In 1991, there are around 120,000 violent crimes from children in the United States. The problem is detention facilities and juvenile courts are only able to handle 48,000 cases of violent offenses. There are certain cases, in which violent crime offenders are sent home with an electronic surveillance even if the type of crime would really require secured detention. This would only mean that there is massive inefficiency and lack of support structure in carrying out the duties of the juvenile court.

One of the arguments of organizations who are against juvenile courts is that although there are lots of programs that are implemented in order to handle cases of juveniles through juvenile courts, most of these programs are actually ineffective. There are several reasons why. First, most of the programs are handled through private entities. These are really expensive treatment and rehabilitation facilities. Secondly, the government detention programs are not also fully equipped with the right programs that would offer rehabilitation. There are lots of juvenile court programs that are not able to curtail recidivism because of lack of effective monitoring and resources that would help the juvenile court achieve its goals.

Delinquent activities is not really a normal process of growing up but it is most of the time an impact of the different kind of peer pressure that young people experiences. Young people have different experiences of puberty and adolescence and this experience is in part influenced through the support systems that surround young people. Most of the time, if the family or other support systems would not be able to provide effective support system in terms of development of self-image; young people acquire affirmation through peers and other groups. In their wish to feel that they “belong” to a group they commit deviant behaviors. This means that in general, it is not really a normal process, but rather an impact of the difficulty of the family structures to support young people at this important stage of development towards adulthood.

The juvenile court is still the best place through which juvenile cases are resolved. If there is a need for the criminal court to handle the child’s case, there should be a careful review of the case. No matter how much analysts would argue that the kinds of crimes are changing, this is insufficient argument to abolish the juvenile court. There is a need to consider those children’s circumstances today has changed as well. Society’s family values and the falling of traditional family structure are also creating problems. Programs of the juvenile court could still help in preventive measures that would help juvenile offenders to change and alter their deviant behaviors.