"Young boy opens fire in the classroom..." More and more it seems that America's youth are making headlines as juvenile crime increases. Scenes like Columbine and the young sniper in D.C. opened the nation's eyes to a harsh reality facing our children today. Many of us fear for the safety of our children and the general public as it becomes clear that these are more than isolated incidences of violence. We are reminded in a painful way that there are many issues and concerns that need to be addressed in our society. The juvenile delinquency problems manifest themselves in extreme ways as mentioned previously; however, there are many ways in which the youth encounter the law.
The approach by which the law engages our youth is rooted in a history of moral and judicial philosophy. Juveniles were perceived as being cognitively and morally incapable of committing crimes before they were separated out of the adult criminal system. However, by 1825 there were signs that juvenile crime was a growing problem, and soon many larger cities developed their own juvenile jails. Due to the conditions and frequency of abuse in these places, the states stepped in to take on that responsibility. The first juvenile court in the country was established in 1899 in Cook County, Illinois.
Since inception, juvenile courts were different from the adult court system. The significance of this fact is that the state based their intervention and treatment of young people in the legal system on the judicial principal of the state as parent. This gave the state the right to intervene with children even though they were not of the age to be granted full legal rights. Even today juvenile law is created with the intent to protect children in addition to punishment.
This philosophy leads to key differences between the juvenile system and the criminal system. Specific laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; however, there are common trends. Each system holds public safety as a primary concern and violations of the law must be punished. But rehabilitation is the focus in the juvenile justice system whereas in the criminal system, punishment is dictated by offense and the goal is deterrence. Each system targets educational crime prevention, but prevention for a juvenile is addressed by other factors that precipitate crime such as families, schools, and the community.
With regard to law enforcement, both systems are based on constitutional rights, yet some levels of intervention are extended to juveniles such as truancy, runaways, and curfews. Also, the information of youth offenders is more highly protected. Juveniles are also prosecuted in a slightly different manner than adults. The legal action taken against a youth offender is determined by legal facts as well as social factors and age. Juvenile courts are generally confidential and there is no right to a jury in most states. If prosecuted, a juvenile is detained in a separate facility than that of adult incarceration.
Youth and the law have experienced a tenuous relationship in the past few decades. More recently, there has been a concerted effort to focus the juvenile justice system on the offender rather than the offense, with an increase in prevention efforts. However, the effectiveness of the system has come under question again since the early 90s when the country experienced an increase in violent crimes among juveniles. There was an outcry for legislative "crackdowns" and greater offender accountability. Alabama is among most states that made their juvenile justice systems more punitive. This included the addition of transfer provisions that made it easier to transfer juveniles to the criminal system. Also, confidentiality laws were modified to make records and proceedings more open.
The debate surrounding the youth and the law is a difficult one. While the numbers indicate a rise in juvenile offenses, there is also significant research documenting educational gaps and shortfalls, rising numbers of children in poverty, and the influx of handguns into our streets. These variables cannot be ignored and the law alone cannot adequately deal with juvenile delinquency.
For these reasons, more efforts need to be made on behalf of youth and our communities to ensure that the issues of the youth and the law are being handled in a comprehensive and sensitive manner.
References
Bernard, T. (1992). The cycle of juvenile justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1997) Crime in the United States 1996. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Fox, Sanford, J. (1998). A contribution to the history of the American juvenile court. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Vol. 49, No. 4.
Szymanski, L. (1998). Juvenile delinquency code purpose clauses. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.