The creators were concerned with the nature of services provided to delinquent, neglected, and abused children than they were about the courts procedural fairness, when the Illinois juvenile court was created in 1899. They were focused on reforming the lives of juveniles through social services interventions believing that children and teens were simply different from adults, and that rehabilitation as opposed to punishment could be far better in directing them out of delinquent behaviours. After the case of Gualt, procedural rights given to adults were expanded to due process, jury, and counsel example right, to juveniles. Lately, increases in juvenile violent crimes like homicide, and rape have led to laws by transferring juveniles into adult criminal court system, minimizing the authority of the juvenile court. It’s set up reactions, for and against. This essay will argue that the juvenile court should be abolished, and at exactly the same time review aspects of the juvenile justice system that are worth keeping.
Feld is of the opinion that juvenile court needs to be abolished as a result of the contradictions of equivalent treatment of juveniles and adults . He does not see why there needs to be different courts for adults and juvenile; contemplating the procedural deficiencies of equal treatment for both. His argument is that juveniles should be tried in adult courts receiving adult procedural court procedures (rather unlike the child saver era). He contends that juveniles should receive special sentencing that takes their youth into account. This might not just be a case by case example, rather, it could be categorical that someone aged 18 or 14, 16 would have their sentence depend on their age- and thus their culpability. At precisely the same time, he states that notions like “adult time for adult crime,” are wrong, knowing that juveniles are not the same as adults. They’re more susceptible to peer pressure, take risks but less in a position to understand repercussions. He contends that their brains are not completely developed which makes them culpable. He proposes instead that juveniles must be tried in adult court but receive as militating factor, particular sentencing that takes their age. The post of Feld is a reaction into a general criticism that the juvenile justice system is not working. It was made in 1899 to serve as a combined social services supplier and rehabilitative agent. Till date, the juvenile justice system has not been in a position to satisfactorily fulfill rehabilitative goal or either social services. His position is that juveniles shouldn’t be place in adult- like jeopardy without those procedural safeguards as grownups today, as it is being done.
They can be in better position to determine the verdict going by the nature of the offense in relation to the juvenile court team who are much more social work oriented and therefore more human and considerate on their customers since the jury considers aggravating and mitigating factors in criminal cases. Again, the jury who are everyday people within the society and cannot be blinded by emotion would, better address the question of culpability and responsibility. In a conceptual level of the kid, culpability should limit him/her to delinquency and not crime.
Concurring on this stand, I don’t see juvenile court should continue to exist in its mal functioning state. The existence of the juvenile court symbolizes a double standard role of the criminal justice system. It is going to do the system great to remodel its constructions and set its priorities directly re-conceptualizing the general mentality of “juvenile.” Some juveniles are more matured than some adults and this might be reflected in their actions including crime. As a good number of teenagers are gifted like artwork or music, exercising obligations that are cognitive and their moral, acknowledged, and held responsible for their performances should criminally gifted juveniles be recognized within their moral cognitive acts and be held responsible for them. This challenges the credibility of the Eight Amendment’s prohibition of unusual and intense punishment to wrongdoers. How vague if its applicability is restricted to adults just leaving adolescents, the eight Change works out to be who perpetrate heinous crimes to go free?