The Usefulness of the Juvenile Court
Introduction
Despite the current changes in judicial decisions, juvenile courts are still different from adult courts. Juvenile courts serve to rehabilitate and treat incarcerated youths whereas adult courts serve to deter offenders from committing suicide (Dawson, 1990). The difference between the two courts is clear and it should not be confused with the current changes in the judicial system. This notwithstanding, the debate whether juvenile court has outlived its usefulness or not remains. Some people believe that it is the high time juvenile courts are disbanded whereas other people believe that juvenile courts should not be disbanded. This essay argues that juvenile courts should not be disbanded because they have not outlived their usefulness.
Argument
First of all, it would be important to acknowledge the fact the current debate has risen from the inability of juvenile courts to achieve their rehabilitative goals. Some people claim that juvenile courts do not achieve what they are established to do. As such, they should be done away with and probably be replaced with better courts or be merged with adult court system (Feld, 1998). Whereas this claim may be true, it would be important to acknowledge the fact that juvenile courts have achieved some of their objectives. For example, they have been able to reform some youths. They have also been able to offer education to some youths during their incarceration. As a result, juvenile courts should not be disbanded because they have not outlived their usefulness. They should be supported because they are in the process of achieving their objectives and mandates.
Second, it would be important to acknowledge the fact that although the federal government through the JJDPA provides resources to states and states’ agencies, the fact remains that the resources that the federal government provides to state government are insufficient. Gaudio (2010) claims that about three-quarter of the national juvenile detention facilitates do not have adequate health care, bed space, suicide control measures and security. This being the case, states’ agencies established to rehabilitate the youths, tend to be ineffective. This means that juvenile courts have not outlived their usefulness because their goals are yet to be achieved.
Third, in contrast to the argument that there is no distinct difference between juvenile courts and adult courts, there is significant difference between the two court systems. On one hand, juvenile courts are meant to treat, rehabilitate and in the process, offer education to incarcerated youths. On the other hand, adult court system is meant to deter criminals from breaking the law. Although there are bridges over which cases pass from one court system to the other, the fact remains that the two court systems are distinct and they should not be merged (Dawson, 1990). Given that juvenile court is far from achieving its primary goals, then it has not outlived its usefulness. As a result, the debate to end juvenile court system is mistaken.
Fourth, the issue of holding children to lesser standards than adults has not changed. It may be true that there might not be big difference between the offenses that children and adults commit, but it would be important to acknowledge the fact that children should be held to lower standards in comparison to adults (Dawson, 1990). Given that juvenile courts were established to handle juvenile issues, then juvenile courts have not outlived their usefulness because have key roles to play in our societies.
Fifth, studies show that juvenile courts are yet to achieve their treatment objectives. A study by Jennings, Gibson and Lanza-Kaduce in particular shows that majority of the detention facilities in USA end up normalizing and deterring youths from committing offenses as opposed to treating them. Despite the study’s limitations, it is clear that juvenile courts deter youths from committing offenses as opposed to treating and rehabilitating youths (Jennings, Gibson, & Lanza-Kaduce, 2009). Although this is a good thing for the court system to do, this objective is for the adult court system, which is significantly different from juvenile court. Juvenile courts are meant to treat, rehabilitate and to some extent educate the youths. Given that the study show that juvenile courts do not treat incarcerated youths, then it is clear that juvenile courts have not outlived their usefulness. As a result, they should not be disbanded because they have not achieved their primary goals.
Some people may argue that the primary goals and objectives for juvenile court can be achieved by adult court system. As far as this issue is concerned, the opponents of juvenile courts should acknowledge the fact that the two court systems are different from each other and they should not be merged.
Conclusion
Based on the above analysis, it is clear that juvenile courts are quite different from adult court system. It is also clear that juvenile courts have not achieved most of their primary goals and objectives. More importantly, it is clear that juvenile courts have important juvenile issues to look into. This being the case, it is clear that juvenile courts have not outlived their usefulness because they have key roles to play in our societies. As a result, juvenile courts should not be disbanded because they have not outlived their usefulness.
References
Dawson, R. (1990). The future of juvenile justice: Is it time to abolish the system? The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 81(1), 136-155.
Feld, B. (1998). Abolish the juvenile court: Youthfulness, criminal, responsibility, and sentencing policy. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88(1), 68-88.
Gaudio, C. (2010). A call to congress to give back the future: End the “war on drugs” and encourage states to reconstruct the juvenile justice system. Family Court Review, 48(1), 212-227.
Jennings, W., Gibson, C. & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (2009). Why not let kids be kids? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between alternative rationales for managing status offending and youths’ self-concepts. Am J Crim Just, 34, 198-212.