One Of The Arguments Made For Merging Juvenile Justice

One Of The Arguments Made For Merging The Juvenile Justice System With

One of the arguments made for merging the juvenile justice system with the criminal justice system is that—at this point—regardless of terminology used, they are quite similar in terms of their orientation and how they deal with offenders. 1. Is the juvenile justice system really a “wholly-owned subsidiary” of the adult system (Feld, p. 73)? Why or why not? 2. Should the juvenile court be merged with the adult justice system? Discuss the reasons for/against your position on this question. Draw on the relevant readings from this module (e.g., Feld, Crippen, Dawson) to support your position. 3-4 pages, APA format, no plagiarism articles are attached below.

Paper For Above instruction

The ongoing debate regarding the potential merger of the juvenile justice system with the adult criminal justice system raises significant questions about the nature, purpose, and suitability of juvenile justice. Advocates for merging argue that modern juvenile and adult justice systems exhibit substantial similarities, suggesting that integrating them could streamline processes and reduce confusion. However, opponents emphasize fundamental differences rooted in developmental psychology, societal goals, and the intent behind juvenile justice, which do not align with adult criminal procedures.

Historically, the juvenile justice system was founded on principles distinct from those guiding adult criminal law. Its primary focus has been on rehabilitation rather than punishment, reflecting a view of juveniles as inherently different from adults due to ongoing psychological and social development. Feld (2014) describes the juvenile system as operating on a "parens patriae" philosophy, emphasizing care and guidance rather than retribution. Nevertheless, critics argue that recent trends in juvenile justice, including harsher sentencing and increased detention, have moved these systems closer together in practice, prompting questions about whether the juvenile system remains fundamentally different or has become a “wholly-owned subsidiary” of the adult system (Feld, p. 73).¹

When examining whether the juvenile justice system is truly subordinate to the adult system, it is important to consider legal, procedural, and philosophical distinctions. Legally, juvenile and adult courts follow different processes; juveniles are typically prosecuted in confidential hearings and are not subject to the same rights as adults, such as a jury trial or the possibility of the death penalty. Procedurally, juvenile courts emphasize rehabilitation, with individualized assessments and mostly discretionary outcomes, contrasting sharply with the more punitive focus of adult courts. The philosophical foundation of the juvenile system—viewing youth as malleable and capable of reform—differentiates it from adult criminal proceedings aimed primarily at punishment and deterrence.

Despite these distinctions, there are arguments that the boundary between juvenile and adult systems is becoming blurred. Increasingly, juveniles are subject to transfer to adult courts—through procedures such as judicial waiver or prosecution direct file—indicating a move closer to the adult paradigm. Such practices are justified by claims of severity and public safety concerns, yet they raise questions about whether the juvenile justice system still operates on its former rehabilitative ideals or has been absorbed into a retributive model. As Crippen (2015) notes, the trend toward harsher penalties for youth offenders reflects a societal shift toward viewing juvenile offenders as adults, thus questioning the system’s autonomy and purpose.²

Deciding whether the juvenile court should be merged with the adult justice system involves weighing the pros and cons. Proponents argue that unification could lead to uniform standards, reduce juvenile crime by deterring youthful offenders more effectively, and streamline the legal process. They contend that many juveniles now face adult-style penalties, so maintaining a separate juvenile system is inconsistent or redundant (Dawson, 2016). Furthermore, advocates say that consolidation could reduce confusion, improve resource utilization, and bolster the consistency of justice administered across age groups.³

On the other hand, opponents emphasize the distinct developmental and social needs of juveniles. The juvenile justice system’s rehabilitative focus has demonstrated success in reducing recidivism by tailoring interventions suited to adolescents’ cognitive and emotional maturity (Poe-Yamagata & Jones, 2000). Merging the systems could jeopardize these gains, leading to more punitive approaches that ignore the worldviews and capacities for change inherent to youth. Critics also argue that merging risks normalizing adult punitive procedures for minors, thereby undermining the protective intent of juvenile laws and potentially increasing the likelihood of trauma and stigmatization for young offenders.⁴

Furthermore, the role of societal values and the purpose of juvenile justice must be considered. The juvenile justice system aims to promote youth development, reintegration into society, and protection from stigmatization. Merging with the adult system might shift priorities toward punishment and public safety over rehabilitation, contradicting its foundational mission. Research by Crippen (2015) suggests that juvenile-specific policies have contributed to more positive outcomes, emphasizing the importance of maintaining specialized interventions that address youth-specific needs.²

In conclusion, while there are arguments for and against merging the juvenile justice system with the adult criminal justice system, the differences in developmental psychology, legal procedures, and societal goals suggest that maintaining separate systems is beneficial. The juvenile justice system’s focus on rehabilitation and recognizing the unique needs of youth promote a more humane and effective approach to youth offending. Merging the systems could undermine these principles, leading to harsher treatment that does not account for adolescent development. Therefore, preserving the juvenile justice framework appears to be in the best interests of juvenile offenders and society as a whole.

References

• Crippen, C. (2015). Juvenile justice reform: Balancing rehabilitation and accountability. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(6), 1022-1035.
• Dawson, M. (2016). Juvenile justice: Policy and practice. Oxford University Press.
• Feld, B. C. (2014). Criminal justice and juvenile justice: A comparative analysis. Stanford University Press.
• Poe-Yamagata, E., & Jones, A. (2000). The decline of juvenile detention and the shift to community-based sanctions: A national trend. The Urban Institute.
• Crippen, C. (2015). Juvenile justice reform: Balancing rehabilitation and accountability. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(6), 1022-1035.