Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is entirely eliminating the use of the life without parole sentence for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the crime being charged. In a modern Western society where there is significant amount of research done of rehabilitation and criminal justice reform, the practice of sentencing JLWOP (Juvenile Life Without Parole) seems outdated and primitive. There are a number of prominent human rights groups that advocate for the banning of the LWOP sentence for juvenile offenders. In his 2010 article for the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation titled ‘Extinguishing All Hope: Life-Without-Parole for Juveniles,’ Frank Butler breaks down the ethical arguments against the sentence from a social policy perspective. He uses a number of pertinent facts and dates to support and enhance his argument, but retains a clear and concise presentation style, making the document easy to read and comprehend on an analytical level. It is clear from his title that it is not an objective piece, but his opinion is supporte... ... middle of paper ... ...ing beckoned in with the 21st century. While U.S.’s JLWOP laws are inconsistent with many human rights treatises and with international law, it is more important for our policies to be based on a thorough understanding of the issue- the most essential being a separation of the processes for juvenile and adult criminal offenders. With an emphasis on rehabilitation for juvenile offenders, and the goal of encouraging maturity and personal development after wayward actions, the futures of many teens in the criminal justice system can become much more hopeful. Works Cited Butler, Frank (2010) ‘Extinguishing All Hope: Life-Without-Parole for Juveniles’, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49: 4, 273-292 “Criminal Law and Procedure -Eighth Amendment- Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences: Graham v. Florida” (2009) Harvard Law Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
The adult system’s shifts leaked into the juvenile system, causing an increase in incarcerations even when delinquency rates were declining at the time. Juvenile reform legislations prompted more compulsory sentencing and more determinate sentences for juveniles, lowering of the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction, considerable ease in obtaining waivers to adult court for juvenile prosecution, and made it easier to gain access to juvenile records as well. Furthermore, it led to greater preoccupation with chronic, violent offenders, which in turn led to a redirection of resources for their confinement. Thereby, the absence of reliable criteria for identifying such offenders tends to stereotype all delinquents and is more likely to raise the level of precautionary confinements. These three major shifts in juvenile justice policy demonstrate the power and depth of traditional beliefs about the causes and cures of crimes in U.S. society. It also shows how the system can bend for a time in the direction of new approaches to prevention and control. Today, we are presently in a time of conservative responses where the prevailing views about crime express beliefs about prevention, retribution, and incapacitation that are profoundly rooted in our
Within the last five years, violent offenses by children have increased 68 percent, crimes such as: murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Honestly, with these figures, it is not surprising at all that the Juveniles Courts focus less on the children in danger, and focus more on dangerous children. This in fact is most likely the underlying reasoning behind juveniles being tried as adults by imposing harsher and stiffer sentences. However, these policies fail to recognize the developmental differences between young people and
Central to the main proportionality principle of the YCJA was that extrajudicial measures should address the rehabilitative needs of the youth offender as a proportionate response to the offence (Barnhorst, 2004). The strong emphasis on rehabilitation under the original provisions of the YCJA was intended to “direct judges toward the use of alternative sanctions and away from the imposition of terms of imprisonment” (Roberts, 2003). Alternative sanctions such as community-based programs or extrajudicial measures allow youth to stay out of the formal criminal justice system, preventing the negative impact of incarceration that contributes to youth
In the last 42 years little to no changes have been made to correct the standards that govern punitive measures towards juvenile delinquency. Today juvenile law is governed by state and many states have enacted a juvenile code. However, in numerous cases, juveniles are transferred to adult court when juvenile courts waive or relinquish jurisdiction. Adolescents should not be tried in the adult court system or sentenced to adult penitentiary's on account of: teen brains are not mature which causes a lack of understanding towards the system, incarceration in an adult facility increases juvenile crime, and children that are sentenced to adult prison are vulnerable to abuse and rape.
A movement has started in our country to renovate the juvenile justice system. This movement wants to erase any differences between young offenders and adult criminals. Almost all fifty states have changed their juvenile justice laws, allowing more youths to be tried as adults...
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While California's juvenile population rose by a half a million since the middle and late 1970's, juveniles made up less than fifth-teen percent of California's felony arrests in 1998, compared to thirty percent in 1978; according to the Justice Policy Institute. The juvenile arrests have dropped back, even as the population of kids between ages of ten and eight-teen has continued to grow, and the number of kids confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA) has fallen. With all the progress our society has made in cutting back in juvenile crimes there is still a very serious problem. But if locking kids up is the best way to address it, how do we explain a drop in crime when there are more teens in California and fewer in custody? First we must look at the economy around us. With so many job opportunities available more and more teenagers find honest ways to keep busy and make money. Our generation has a brighter future than the generation a decade ago. Next we look at successful crime prevention efforts: after-school programs, mentoring, teen outreach programs, truancy abatement, anti-gang programs, family resource centers. There is evidence that these programs are beginning to pay off. Sending more, and younger teens through the adult court system has been a trend across the country in reaction to crimes, such as school shootings and violent rapes. Yet evidence shows that treating youth as adults does not reduce crime. In Florida, where probability wise more kids are tried as adults then in any other state, studies found that youth sent through the adult court system are twice as likely to commit more crimes when they're release...
References Glick, B. (1998) No Time to Play: Youthful Offenders in Adult Correctional Systems. American Correctional Association Wilkerson, I (1996) “Death Sentence at Sixteen Rekindles Debate on Justice for Juveniles.” New York Times, November Butts, J.A. and Snyder, H. (1997) “The Youngest Delinquents: Offenders Under the Age of 15,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice) Lefevre, P.S., “Professor Grapples with Execution of Juveniles.” National Catholic Reporter Snyder, A. “Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders” (1997) National Center for Juvenile Justice
In the second article “Cruel Punishment for Juveniles” the authors hold a different view from Linda J. Collier. Treating juveniles as adults only helps society to forget that they are really still kids. They feel that subjecting children to adult punishment is cruel and unusual. They think, “Most youthful wrong-doers do not become adult criminals. There are turning points----quality education, well paid work, stable marriage------ that helps young offenders become law-abiding adults.” (Pg. 637) Certain community youth programs that deal with kids have shown to work in dealing with juveniles.
This essay seeks to demonstrate that juveniles, persons who have not reached the age at which one should be treated as an adult by the criminal justice system (16 in NYS), charged with violent felonies, a series of unlawful crime punishable by imprisonment from more than one year to death (murder, rape, arson, and burglary), ought not to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system because this will lead to more acts of violence against juvenile offenders by both adult offenders and themselves. Three argume...
When our thoughts turn to the criminal justice system it is only a natural instinct to assume everyone associated with policing, courts, and corrections will have to deal with juveniles sometime in their career. Young people in today’s society can be so easily influenced by social situations, peer pressure, and family members. The courts in the United States are faced with difficult decisions on a daily basis. Sentencing juveniles to adult facilities for their crimes is becoming a common trend in the justice system today; however it is not a deterrent whatsoever. “The current policies of juvenile bind over to adult criminal court and severe sentencing have been unsuccessful
Working for the Washington, D.C. Public Defender’s Office in the fall of 1995, I witnessed first hand the inadequacies of our legal system with respect to juvenile offenders. I believe that juvenile justice is a worthwhile topic because of its relevance to every member of American society. If we do not help children in trouble today, they will not have the capacity to be functi...
The punishment of juveniles by execution is a longstanding practice in our nation’s history. Throughout the last few decades, the U.S. Supreme court has been asked to determine if the execution of a juvenile, sixteen or seventeen years old at the time of the offense, represents cruel and unusual punishment. In various rulings, the U.S. Supreme court has interpreted cruel and unusual punishment to include penalties that are excessive, not proportioned to the offense, and those that do not consider the defendant’s degree of criminal culpability. One case in particular that addresses the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles is the landmark court case Roper v. Simmons.
The United States, a country who has prisons filled with juvenile delinquents. Many of the offenders are arrested for status offenses, but there are also offenders who are incarcerated for serious crimes. Are these offenders getting the treatment needed to succeed after their release? Are the punishments in the juvenile detention centers creating more problems? Is the juvenile justice system addressing the needs of those juveniles participating in the system? The answer to these questions will be answered from viewing three separate documentaries on the juvenile justice system.
Juvenile delinquency is a serious problem and leads to negative outcomes for youth, families, and society as a whole. Adolescents under the age of 18 who are arrested for committing a criminal act are processed through a juvenile justice system. The juvenile justice system is grounded on the principle that the youth have different needs than adults. During adolescence, youth are forming their identities and still developing mentally, physically, socially, and emotionally. Due to their early stages of development, juveniles who violate the law should be treated differently than adults.
Youth justice is a complex concern. There are many different ways to approach it — and just like anything else, everyone believes that their model is the most effective for reducing crime. Q’oranka Kilcher, an American actor once said “[…] it’s important for us as a society to remember that the youth within juvenile justice systems are, most of the time, youths who simply haven 't had the right mentors and supporters around them - because of circumstances beyond their control.” This seems fair. Youth may not be able to control their circumstances, but should they be responsible for their own actions and be punished? Or, should they be supported and encouraged in order to get rehabilitated? Different opinions influence different models. Four