Treating Juveniles as Adults
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act mandate that youths involved in the justice system should be protected by law. Protection includes that of community interests as well. The policy is a necessity following the high numbers of youth crime in the U.S. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is tasked with carrying out the Acts mandate. The OJJDP functions under the Department of Justice. It thus means that specific parameters must be factored in the justice process of youth criminals. The Act supports the protection of juveniles through several ways that include but not limited to the removal of juveniles from adult jails (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, n.d.).
Impact of the Policy
There are instances of juvenile delinquents being locked up in jail with adults. High-level crime juveniles are more likely to be locked up in adult facilities. High-level crime, in this case, refers to aggravated assault, murder, and robbery, for example. Being a youth does not disqualify an individual from committing a capital crime, for instance. In this regard, it is arguable that some juveniles are more threatening than adult criminals. However, this fact notwithstanding, youths should not be locked up with adults. Teens in adult jails are likely to suffer abuse such as suicide, physical, and sexual abuse (Emory, 2012). It is in this regard that juveniles should be protected by removing them from adult jails. Youths are thus profoundly impacted by the policy since they are the reason for its existence.
The policy equally impacts the community through the rehabilitation efforts of juveniles. It also makes reintegration into the community easier. The community gets to understand the juveniles are rehabilitated through interactions made possible through the department efforts.
States are also impacted as the department is involved in policymaking. Policymaking at the state level is inevitable since justice processes take place at the state level. It thus means that for effective impact, states have to participate in policymaking efforts that best suit their needs. Different states, for example, have different juvenile crime levels. The varying crime levels automatically require diverse efforts. The lock-up of juveniles in adult jails also varies across states; hence OJJDP efforts would vary.
Current Issues
It is important to note that, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there was a likelihood of violent criminals being predominantly youth as opposed to adults (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.). It, therefore, means that a high number of youth criminals are likely to be charged in an adult court. Even though there is a need to separate youth and adult criminals in jails as well as courts, a juvenile can be legally tried in an adult court. Several aspects must be met for a transfer to an adult court to take place. The youth in question has to have committed a violent crime, for example (Department Of Justice Archives, 2020). With the high number of youths committing violent crimes, it translates to an increased number of juveniles being tried and sentenced in adult courts. Being jailed in adult prisons is thus more likely common. Being tried as an adult translates to being sentenced as an adult. Leniency otherwise common in juvenile cases is therefore not available.
It is in this regard that the Eighth Amendment comes into play. The Amendment seeks to prohibit excessive punishment by a court. Extreme punishment, in this case, not only refers to cruel punishment such as the death penalty but excessive fines as well (Cornell Law School, n.d.). As regards the death penalty punishment, the alternative is a life sentence in most cases without parole. Such a sentence is, however, cruel when used in a non-homicide case. There have been instances of youths sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in non-homicide cases. The Graham and Miller cases are evidence of harsh sentencing in this regard (Emory, 2012). The argument is based on the fact that life without parole sentencing is too severe for juveniles. However, since several aspects of the law allow for the transfer of a youth to an adult court, the issue is highly debatable.
Pros and Cons
Treating juveniles as adults have its advantages, which include life sentencing. A youth with a first-degree murder crime would be treated fairly as far as a life sentence is concerned. However, being locked up in an adult jail would not have any positive effects on the juvenile. The correctional system is meant to punish as well as rehabilitate. An adult correctional facility is more likely to punish than it is expected to rehabilitate since abuse is highly likely to happen. It is in this light that the OJJDP under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act seeks to remove juveniles from adult correctional facilities.
Conclusion
Juvenile crime was previously associated with petty crime. However, over the years, it has evolved to involve violent crime. The fact that more youth are likely to commit violent crime than adults (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.) is evidence of the challenge facing the department of justice. An increase in youth crime translates to a change in policy and formulation of new systems. Strategies that lower juvenile delinquency would be more effective as opposed to policies that seek to deal with sentencing.
Reference
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) – Juvenile defendants. Retrieved 6
February 2020, from https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=236
Coalition for Juvenile Justice. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act | CJJ. Retrieved
6 February 2020, from http://www.juvjustice.org/federal-policy/juvenile-justice-and-delinquency-prevention-act
Cornell Law School. Eighth Amendment. Retrieved 6 February 2020, from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment
Department Of Justice Archives. (2020). 129. Conditions Precedent To Motion To Transfer.
Retrieved 6 February 2020, from https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-129-conditions-precedent-motion-transfer
Emory, L. (2012). Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Confining Juveniles with Adults after
Graham and Miller Comment 61 Emory Law Journal 2011-2012. Retrieved 6 February 2020, from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/emlj61&div=48&id=&page=