Should Violent Juvenile Offenders Be Tried as Adults? Essay Example

Introduction

“There is a different standard for children,”- the governor said after 14-year-old Nathaniel Brazill had been found guilty of second degree murder – the year before, Brazill had killed his teacher (Water, “Should The Law Treat Kids and Adults Differently?”). Such charges usually result in prison terms up to 30 years for adults, but that Brazill’s sentence will be much milder no one doubts (Water, “Should The Law Treat Kids and Adults Differently?”). Needless to say, mild sentences for juvenile offenders are unfair. This is the recurrent problem with juvenile courts, which rely on rehabilitation and education and lack legal capacity to punish young offenders according to the seriousness of their crimes. Young offenders should be transferred to adult courts and tried as adults, to make them understand the seriousness of their crime, to raise the upper bound of the punishment for serious crimes, and to improve the overall efficiency of the juvenile system.

Juvenile offenders must be tried as adults, to make them realize the seriousness of their crime. According to Water, adolescents today are more sophisticated than their peers used to be a decade ago (“Should the Law Treat Kids and Adults Differently?”). They can access and use violent weapons (Water, “Should the Law Treat Kids and Adults Differently?”). Watching violence on TV, in families, at school, etc. children have a clear idea of what murder is and in what consequences it may result. Water asserts that as long as children can load and shoot a gun they know what they are doing (“Should the Law Treat Kids and Adults Differently?”). Unfortunately, juvenile courts continue treating juvenile offenders like children, offering rehabilitation rather than punishing them for their crimes. Juvenile courts create milder conditions of justice. Juvenile courts fail to realize that in most cases, adolescents who commit crimes do it deliberately and consciously, and thus deserve an adult punishment. Chamberlin is correct in that only by sending juvenile offenders to adult courts can society protect itself from further crime and violence (“Not Kids Anymore: A Need for Punishment and Deterrence in the Juvenile Justice System”). Juvenile offenders must be sent to adult criminal courts, to make sure that the court punishes them for their crimes and that they can realize their seriousness.

Juvenile offenders must be tried in adult courts because juvenile courts lack legal capability to raise the upper bound of punishment for serious crimes. Fagan and Zimring write that juvenile courts cannot expand their punishment power because such expansion would undermine the basic mission of the juvenile system of justice (216). Not only do juvenile courts face overloads but they also lack legal capacity to raise the upper bound of punishment for serious crimes. There is no way for the criminal justice system to punish and deter juvenile crimes other than to transfer juvenile offenders to adult courts. By trying juvenile offenders as adults, the criminal justice system will guarantee that the punishment is fair and just and that the severity of punishment matches the seriousness of the crime itself.

Nevertheless, criminal justice professionals vote against transferring juvenile criminals to adult courts, based on the premise that juvenile transfers are only a short-term solution to a complex social situation and that at best, transfers mollify the public desire for punishment (Brown, “Juvenile Offenders: Should They Be Tried in Adult Courts?”). Brown asserts that the majority of juveniles transferred to the adult system re-enter society stigmatized and become more dangerous than they had been before the imprisonment (“Juvenile Offenders: Should They Be Tried in Adult Courts?”). However, nothing can stigmatize an adolescent more than the fact of having committed a crime. More often than not, a crime is a deliberate choice. Stigmatization cannot justify mild sentences which adolescents get for violent offences. The juvenile system of criminal justice is too mild and too inefficient to cope with serious juvenile crimes. The only way adolescents can realize the seriousness of their crimes and be punished fairly is through adult courts.

Conclusion

Thousands of adolescents commit violent crimes. More often than not, adolescents realize the seriousness of their intentions, and crimes are the result of their deliberate and conscious choice. Juvenile offenders must be tried as adults, to ensure that they can realize the seriousness of their crimes and that the severity of punishment matches the seriousness of the crime itself. In their current state, juvenile courts lack legal capacity to raise the upper bound of punishment for serious crimes. Juvenile courts rely on education and rehabilitation and create an impression that even the most serious crime may go unpunished. Only by transferring young offenders to adult courts can society protect itself from violence and aggression of young criminals.

Works Cited

Brown, M. “Juvenile Offenders: Should They Be Tried in Adult Courts?”, Find Articles. USA Today, January 1998. Web. 30 April 2010.

Chamberlin, C. “Not Kids Anymore: A Need For Punishment and Deterrence In The Juvenile Justice System”, Boston College. Boston College, n.d. Web. 30 April 2010.

Fagan, J. & Zimring, F.E. The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal Court. University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Water, L. “Should the Law Treat Kids and Adults Differently?”, The Time. The Time, 17 May 2001. Web. 30 April 2010.