The juvenile system has been viewed as a practising ground for new attorneys to acquire experience in the courtroom to move to the adult juvenile system. However, the juvenile system is more complicated due to the involvement of a child violating the law.
THE ADVANTAGE OF A DEFENCE ATTORNEY OVER A JUVENILE PROSECUTOR
A defence attorney usually represents adults who are most competent except in cases of mental illness, intoxication, among others. Juvenile prosecutors, on the other hand, prosecute children who in more cases than adults are incompetent due to their inability to understand the charges, judicial system, sentencing etc.
Judicial prosecutors prosecute children who are vulnerable people, and their best interest should be protected. It can be argued that sentencing children to the juvenile system would not be in their best interest, especially for their development.
Judicial prosecutors regularly experience the defence of a competence evaluation to be done on the child at the request of the defence attorney. This request can lead to the case being thrown out based on the incompetence of the child to undergo a trial.
ETHICAL CHALLENGES FACED BY JUVENILE PROSECUTORS AND DEFENCE ATTORNEYS
In the past, a juvenile attorney would guide the child through the judicial proceeding, but that has evolved into a system that is more punitive, thus giving rise to the juvenile prosecutor. This situation creates a conflict of interest for the juvenile prosecutor between protecting the best interest of the child and preserving the integrity of the courtroom as a judicial officer. Therefore, as a solution, juvenile prosecutors should expand their knowledge on children development because research on the subject is developing over time, particularly on adolescents. This action would be beneficial in establishing the competence of a minor.
Defence attorneys have an ethical dilemma in preserving the interest of their client over their duty to the court as a judicial officer. An example would be a situation where a client reveals that they had murdered in the past, which would be credible information to offer the court over preserving the principle of advocate client confidentiality. A recommendation would be to protect the integrity of the courtroom because legislation has a moral backbone. After all, it is drafted based on the needs of human beings. Therefore, one could argue that the non-compliance of law is immoral to society.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, adjudicative competence should be practised more to establish the capability of a minor to undergo a trial to make it ethically easier for the juvenile prosecutor. This practice will reduce the possibility of a child experiencing the judicial system without understanding the illegality of their action or inaction.
REFERENCE
Frost L, Volenik A (2004). The Ethical Perils of Representing the Juvenile Defendant Who May Be Incompetent. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, Vol 14 < https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1414&context=law_journal_law_policy> accessed on the 31st of July 2020