Juvenile Justive vs Adult Justice

Differences between Juvenile Justice and adult criminal justice

Andrew Rosenthal

Central Washington University: Law and Justice- Pierce County Center

Abstract

The Juvenile Justice system has gone through a series of evolutions which have made it vastly different from the adult system.  This includes a separate range on what ages someone is held responsible for the crimes they commit.  The role of punishment in the juvenile system has changes to reflect rehabilitation and diversion rather than punishment based that the adult system operates. In a further attempt to not label young offenders, the names of parts of the juvenile court process have been eased to reflect a less formal appearance. Judges also play a different role with juveniles, acting more as a guardian rather than a enforcer of the formal process. Another change is the role of police, with juvenile’s law enforcement is given a broader range of discretion to avoid formalizing punishment.

            The evolution of the criminal justice system has changed the treatment of juveniles from being treated exactly the same as adult offenders to having their own specific process. The early stages of this separation began with what are known as houses of refuge which came too existed in the early 1820s (Book 7). This was an early attempt to house juveniles at different locations than adult offenders. Further changes occurred that pushed help to establish the separation between the two systems, notably the first juvenile specific court which occurred in Illinois in 1899 (Cox, Allen, Hanser, Conrad 2008). This advancement gave juveniles a different standing when it comes to the criminal justice process. The system was helped to grow into what it is today through the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of 1967 which changes a number of things related to juveniles; Decriminalization of status offences, making court proceedings private, extension of due process rights, deinstitutionalization, diversification of striation and decentralization to a local level (Cox et al., 2008). Evolution to the Criminal Justice System has created specific differences between Juveniles and Adults which include; differences based on age, different forms of punishment, distinct court process, different role of the judge and different interaction with police in situations. While some differences are simply calling things something else, in some cases juveniles are a totally different set of people to consider.

                Unlike the adult system, the age at which time the offence was committed has an impact on the juvenile system. It varies from source to source on what age’s juveniles are considered responsible for crimes which they commit. One standard considers those under 8 unable to commit a crime, between 8-12 presumed incapable and over 12 capable of committing crimes. Once you’re an adult, you are responsible for committing crimes regardless of your age; the juvenile system does not do this. Generally until the mid teens, the juvenile process will try to work with kids and not waive their case to adult court unless they are near the age of an adult or the severity of the offence. I believe that this difference in being liable based on ages is in existence because of the maturity and growing levels of juveniles. Juveniles still have growing minds, they are learning about the world and what is right and wrong, keeping separate age brackets when deciding to charge a juvenile with a crime takes account the mental maturity of the juvenile and protect them from serious punishment when they did not know the severity of what they did.

                Another difference in the systems is what role punishment plays as a goal. The adult system is all about punishment and focuses very little efforts on rehab and other methods, the juvenile system however try to only use punishment as a last resort. In most cases a type of diversion program is tried first to help avoid the negative stigma involved with convictions. One huge example differences in punishments comes with the case of Roper v. Simmons in 2005, which the death penalty for crimes committed fewer than eighteen became illegal (Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, Banich 2009). I think that the difference exists to try to protect the juvenile from remaining on a bad path, using diversion as the main method rather than locking them up and forgetting about them plays to the idea that juveniles are still impressionable, and there is hope to rehabilitate them if the right system is in place.

                Similar to the punishment issue, the idea of having separate names for different process through juvenile court is another major difference. The juvenile court system is structured very similarly to the adult system but thing are wording is changed example, instead of arrest, juveniles are taking into custody, or indeed of trial it is an adjudication. I believe that this difference coincides with what is known as the labeling theory. Keeping the process seem less harsh, the juveniles do not get the negative stigma that would come with harsher wording of the process. Taking into account the labeling theory, if the process is more informal, then the juveniles do not get the criminalization pressure that is brought with the formal titles. This hopefully leads to the juveniles to not commit future criminal acts because of the changes in the labels, reducing their labeling as full blown criminals.

                The role of the judge in juvenile cases is also different than those in the adult system. The case of McKeiver v. Pennsylvania in 1971, found that jury cases were not required for juveniles (Cox et al., 2008). Having more juvenile cases sought over by a judge, the role of the judge in the juvenile system is far different the adult system. The Parens Patrae idea can be applied here, juveniles are sought of as special, in cases which parents are not available, the state and the judge will work to act in the best interest of the child rather than just locking the child up. Although some judges are focused on the formal process, much work to try to serve what is in the juvenile’s best interests and this includes looking for alternative treatment. This difference exists because juveniles are a bit fragile, I believe that it is appropriate to use the system to nurture them a little rather than shipping them off to incarceration, having the judge have a more active part in treatment bring about the feeling of the system trying to help juveniles avoid delinquency rather than just punish them. 

                The role of police enforcement is different between juveniles and adults as well.  When making contact with adult offenders, the police tend have less discretion in some cases that those with juveniles. Rather than taking the juvenile immediately to booking, there are a number of different things officers can do which is not available in cases with adults. Some examples of this include verbal warnings, counseling the juvenile, and being able it involve parents in a informal solution rather than the formal process. This difference is another example on how the juvenile system is not there to punish but try to get the juveniles to do better, often parent involvement or informal processes can do just as much to solve the problem without all of the negative effects the formal system attaches.

                Overall there a wide variety of differences in the juvenile and adult system, many more than what are brought up here. The idea of different standards based on age, focus on diversion rather than punishment, avoiding the labeling of court proceedings, more informal supportive role of the judge and the discussion that is able to be used by law enforcement all help enforce the idea that unlike the adult system, juveniles should be rehabilitated and focus on avoiding delinquent behavior rather than just punishment.