America's Juvenile Justice System

The Juvenile Justice system, since its conception over a century ago, has been one at conflict with itself. Originally conceived as a fatherly entity intervening into the lives of the troubled urban youths, it has since been transformed into a rigid and adversarial arena restrained by the demands of personal liberty and due process. The nature of a juvenile's experience within the juvenile justice system has come almost full circle from being treated as an adult, then as an unaccountable child, now almost as an adult once more.

Studies and anecdotes have shown that our modern approach, however, is ill-equipped to reduce crime or deal with chronic delinquents while at the same time protecting their due liberties. We now stand on the precipice of decision: How can we strike an appropriate balance in the juvenile justice system? Should we even retain a separate system for children at all? The answers are usually difficult, sometimes subtle, but always possible to attain.

This paper will analyze the different theoretical issues pertaining to the modern juvenile court, determine their origin, and suggest a course of action for resolving these issues to the best extent possible. It is important to note, however, that the juvenile justice system alone cannot ever prevent all juvenile crime, respond perfectly to every situation or treat every suspect fairly. Furthermore, an effective antidote to modern juvenile crime would necessitate far broader action, addressing underlying social structure inequalities that breed poverty and social disorganization.

The Creation of Childhood and Its Court

Prior to modern times, Colonial American children were perceived to be small adults, more or less able to interact with grown-ups and ...

... middle of paper ...

... presence of a competent lawyer, that is an issue for the Supreme Court).

Judicial waivers would become obsolete. The offenders left in the juvenile system (under age 16) would hardly present anymore than a handful of cases that might raise questions of fitness. If only 1% of older offenders under today?s system are waived, this problem will be mitigated.

It may seem harsh to draw the line at 16 without compromise, but we, as Feld points out, do this with many other societal privileges and duties. The draft age is precisely 18, the driving age in most states is precisely 16 and so forth. Is a person more fit to be drunk a week before their 21st birthday than a week after? Drawing one line is the only way to avoid the problems associated with waiver laws that either provide too much discretion that lends itself to discrimination and to provide consistency.