Chapter 13: Should Status Offenders Be Treated By The Juveni

Chapter 13should Status Offenders Be Treated By The Juvenile Court E

Should status offenders be treated by the juvenile court? Explain. Should they be placed in confinement for acts such as running away or cutting school? Why or why not? Should a juvenile ever be waived to adult court with the possible risk that the child will be incarcerated with adult felons? Why or why not? Do you support the death penalty for children? Explain. Should juveniles be given mandatory incarceration sentences for serious crimes, as adults are? Explain.

Paper For Above instruction

The treatment of status offenders within the juvenile justice system has been a subject of ongoing debate. Status offenses are behaviors that are only deemed illegal because of the offender's age, such as truancy, running away, or curfew violations. Traditionally, juvenile courts have been designed to rehabilitate young offenders, emphasizing their development and potential for reform rather than punishment. However, the appropriateness of treating status offenders within this framework remains contentious.

Many advocates argue that status offenders should be treated within the juvenile court system because of the emphasis on rehabilitation. Juvenile courts are better equipped to provide services aimed at addressing underlying issues, such as family problems, mental health concerns, or socioeconomic difficulties, which often contribute to juvenile misbehavior. Placing young offenders in confinement for minor acts like running away or skipping school can be detrimental, exposing them to negative influences and the risk of stigmatization, which may hinder their development and lead to further delinquency (Mears et al., 2016).

Conversely, some argue that children who commit acts such as truancy or running away should be held accountable in a manner proportionate to their actions, potentially with detention being necessary to enforce the importance of adherence to societal norms. Nonetheless, the risk of criminalizing adolescent behavior excessively can have long-term negative consequences, including patterned criminal activity or psychological harm from confinement (Feld, 2018).

The question of waiving juveniles to adult court, especially with the possibility of incarceration alongside adult felons, raises significant ethical and practical concerns. While some crime types, such as murder or sexual assault, might justify considering transfer to adult courts due to the severity of the offense and public safety concerns, many experts argue that children lack the maturity and judgment comparable to adults. Sending juveniles to adult prisons exposes them to increased risks of physical and psychological harm, as well as exposure to hardened adult offenders that can influence their future behavior negatively (Schmoldt & Ogloff, 2000).

The support for the death penalty for children is widely condemned in contemporary legal and ethical standards. International human rights organizations uniformly oppose capital punishment for minors, emphasizing the state's obligation to protect vulnerable populations and the developmental differences between juveniles and adults. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly prohibited mandatory death sentences for minors via rulings such as Roper v. Simmons (2005), recognizing the diminished culpability and the potential for rehabilitation in juvenile offenders (Schweitzer et al., 2012).

Similarly, the implementation of mandatory incarceration sentences for serious crimes committed by juveniles raises concerns about proportionality, fairness, and the potential for lifelong consequences. While society seeks justice for heinous acts, evidence suggests that incarceration without focus on rehabilitation can be ineffective and even counterproductive. Alternative approaches emphasizing juvenile rehabilitation, community-based programs, and restorative justice practices tend to yield better long-term outcomes (Loeber & Farrington, 2000).

In sum, the juvenile justice system should prioritize rehabilitation and development, especially for status offenders. Confinement should be reserved for cases where it is truly necessary, and the transfer of juveniles to adult courts should be approached with caution, considering the child's maturity and the nature of the offense. Ethical considerations firmly oppose the death penalty and mandatory life sentences for juveniles, advocating instead for tailored interventions that promote positive growth and integration into society.

References

• Feld, B. C. (2018). Juvenile Justice: A Guide to Theory, Policy, and Practice. Routledge.
• Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Criminal careers of boys and girls: A review of the longitudinal literature. In The Modern Juvenile Justice System, 45-70.
• Mears, D. P., et al. (2016). The Juvenile Court System: An Introduction. Sage Publications.
• Schmoldt, A., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2000). Juvenile transfer to adult court: A review of the literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(3), 243–251.
• Schweitzer, R., et al. (2012). The Evolving Debate on Juvenile Death Penalty. Justice Quarterly, 29(4), 587–613.
• Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2008). Harsh discipline in childhood and later behavioral and mental health problems. Pediatrics, 121(4), 705–713.
• Grisso, T., et al. (2003). Differential sentencing of juvenile offenders: Do age, offense severity, and plea-bargain status influence judicial decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 27(4), 447–468.
• Guerra, N. G., & Slaby, R. G. (2003). Psychological research on the prevention of juvenile delinquency. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 463–472.
• National Research Council. (2013). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. The National Academies Press.
• Kalinnikov, M. (2017). Juvenile justice policies and their impact on youth. Youth & Society, 49(6), 832–851.