Should Juvenile Delinquents Be Treated Like Adult Criminals?

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).