The History and Philosophy behind Juvenile Justice System
A separate justice system for persons below the age of eighteen has been in existence since the 19 century. Historians and criminal justice scholars have found it crucial to explain how these juvenile courts came to be. This is not to say that the courts have been performing their duties perfectly. Of course, some challenges have come from the transformations from punishments to protection and back. Besides, the changes explain how the youths have been and are being treated the way they are.
According to Hess, Orthmann, & & Wright (2012), the philosophical changes in the cultural conception of youths and the social control strategies were responsible for the evolution of the first juvenile court in Cook County. Controlling children is not an easy task. In one way or the other, they end up committing crimes either knowingly or unknowingly. Culture is fundamental in the upbringing of the child. However, some cultures may be offensive to the law, which may lead to one being apprehended. For instance, in some cultures, abusing bhang is acceptable, while the law prohibits the act. Such children, when found guilty, should be taken to juvenile court and rehabilitated. Therefore, I strongly agree with the progressive reformers’ idea to create the juvenile court as a social welfare substitute for criminal courts to respond to the youths’ noncriminal and criminal misconducts.
Although the juvenile court is still under the justice system, it should be allowed to independent. Too much influence from the Supreme Court influences the therapeutic mission of these courts. This is drawn from the Gault of 1967. The progressive reformers had their primary focus on the interest of the child. But since the Gault, it is evident that it engrafted formal due procedures safeguards at trial on the courts’ customized treatment sentencing scheme. The procedures and purpose of the juvenile court changed as a result of the drastic decision. In fact, the juvenile justice system has no greater difference with the adult criminal courts. Working on the progressive reformers’ theories is better for the effective running of the juvenile courts.
Even before the first Juvenile Court came into existence, the children who were found guilty of their crimes still received protection through the common law’s infancy. Although anyone below eighteen years is a minor, the law was a bit lenient to those below seven years. It is the same today. Children below fourteen years are all categorized to lack criminal capacity than their older counterparts. However, something interesting with the Juvenile Court is that the jury considers major and minor mistakes.
In most cases, those that are charged with minor crimes their punishment become canceled. I presume this act is best as it takes in children from different controls. Therefore, children should be protected against discrimination when it comes to the justice system. The children grow up more responsible and have respect for the criminal justice system.
Some people still question why there is still a distinction between the children and adult offenders, even after transforming from an informal to rehabilitative agency into a scaled-down criminal court. Also, though the minors are found guilty of the crimes, they should be protected. Putting the children, together with adult offenders, can result in the harassment of the child. Instead of being corrected by their mistakes, it can be dangerous to the kids when they eventually come out. Hess, Orthmann, & & Wright (2012) assert that the juvenile courts will be effective if they are allowed to work independently, avoid child discrimination from any control, and have the child’s interests at heart. The juvenile justice system, other than punishing the youth offenders, they are faced with inadequate social welfare services that make them depart from the pure rehabilitative model of justice.
Reference
Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. H., & & Wright, J. P. (2012). Juvenile justice. Cengage Learning.