Introduction
The issues of whether or not to treat juveniles or minors the same ways as adults when they commit a crime is a delicate one and has been debated for decades. Many authoritative figures believe they should be treated in a similar manner. However, there are many researchers that feel differently, believing that charging a child with what many consider an “adult crime” could affect the rest of their life and leave them with no hope of redemption. When making such a life-changing decision a judge or jury should already understand the social, biological, and psychological factors that differ within a child to identify a wider range of motivations as to why they may have committed the crime in the first place. Unlike what many of us believed in the past, most individuals now accept the ideal that crimes committed by young adults is disproportionate in comparison to the crimes committed by adults. Due to a lack of maturity, it can be argued that a juvenile is more likely to fall under peer pressure, take unreasonable risks, and have a better chance of a mental or intellectual disability that could be hindering their positive progression to adulthood. They also have a having a higher susceptibility to have experienced victimization such as abuse that could lead to mental instability causing them to react differently than others. It is these factors that can be viewed as combined with a juvenile’s enhanced ability for rehabilitation utilizing key strategies that should be recognized when sentencing a minor for a crime they have committed compared to an adult who has the committed the same crime.
Juveniles can be highly diverse individuals and this should be considered when coming up with a response or solution to a crime they may have committed. Elements surrounding this issue have changed drastically from decades ago. Historically, juveniles involved in the criminal justice system were treated no different than adults who experienced the same proceedings. It was not until the “early twentieth century, that children were even subjected to the same penalties as adults, including hard labor and capital punishment” (Richards, 2011).
It was not until the mid-nineteenth century when lawmakers decided there should be a separate category for juveniles compared to adults. Today, however, it is vastly known due to research and data that juveniles should be held accountable for their actions however they should be kept separate from the adult offenders due to their lack of maturity and experience in life and social issues. It is because of this that juveniles are usually treated differently than adults and given a lesser sentence than offenders in the adult justice system. This does depend, however, on the age of the child and the severity of the crime since a 17-year old individual, who is more likely to be able to comprehend between right and wrong compared to a 7-year old who is still growing and learning about limitations that should be abided by in society.
Problem One: Lack of Maturity
As previously stated, maturity can play a big factor in the severity and amount of crimes committed by someone considered a juvenile. “Research consistently indicates that there are a number of different offending pattern over their course in life. That is, while most juveniles grow out of crime, they do so at different rates” (Fagan & Western, 2005). It has become evident that some individuals have a better chance of discontinuing or abstaining from committing a crime that others. Gender can also play a role in this dissimilarity. The ability to get a juvenile to desist from committing such behaviors has not been thoroughly researched as it should be. Therefore, it seems that there a myriad of diverse pathways that one could take in and out of the process of committing a crime.
Problem Two: Peer Pressure
Another concern that has arisen as a possible factor influencing juveniles is the issue of peer pressure. “Research on adolescent brain development demonstrates that the second decade of life is a period of rapid change, particularly in the areas of the brain associated with response inhibition, the calibration of risks and rewards and the regulations of emotions” (Steinberg, 2005). Depending upon the age and maturity level of the adolescent, certain transformations in motivation and arousal that can initiated by puberty can precede the way an adolescent develops what we would consider a normal competence. This can construct a deviation between the juvenile’s overall positive experiences and their ability to control these motivational and arousal impulses.
Problem Three: Mental or Intellectual Disability
A third concern that correlates with a juvenile’s ability to control their impulses is their mental status or intellectual disability. Juveniles that reside in the justice system are more common to develop intellectual disabilities than adults would. Mental illness is also more likely to be present in juveniles residing in the criminal justice system. “The Young People In Custody Health Survey, conducted in New South Wales in 2005, found that 88 percent of young people in custody reported symptoms consistent with a mild, moderate or severe psychiatric disorder” (HREOC 2005). This statistic has also been fairly comparable to statistics worldwide. Psychologists all over the world have recognized the differences in the synaptic connections in the brain in juveniles with certain mental illnesses compared to those in adults. This could explain why they might not be able to comprehend the ideals of what are positive and negative behaviors leading them down a path to delinquency.
Conclusion
The aim of this study is to demystify the effects of charging and incarcerating minors alongside their adult counterparts. The paper will explore the judicial process and how juveniles cannot handle the stress that comes with the process of the justice system. While the idea of taking criminal minors through an equal legal process as adults is in some instance justifiable, it is imperative that social, physical and psychological aptitude of the children hold through such a rigorous process. Minors will be compared with their older counterparts in their undressing of the rights including waiver of Miranda rights. In line with Grasso's claim that children are neither competent nor psychologically prepared to press for rights waiver, I will explicate in regards to all of the other factors that will disadvantage juveniles in the mainstream local proceedings (Umbach, Berryessa & Raine, 2015). Finally, this summation will also explore the psychological and socio-behavioral implication of holding minors in adult prisons (Siegel, 2014). The research will utilize research and court published data to justify the need for separating the mainstream legal system from juvenile system.
References
Fagan, A. A., & Western, J. (2005). Escalation and Deceleration of Offending Behaviours From
Adolescence to Early Adulthood. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
38(1), 59-76. doi:10.1375/acri.38.1.59
HREOC. (2005). Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and Australian juvenile justice systems: A report. Sydney: HREOC. Print.
Richards, K. (2011, February). What makes juvenile offenders different from adult offenders?
Trends and Issues in Crimes and Criminal Justice, 409, 1-8. Retrieved August 6, 2016,
Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2014). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law. Cengage Learning.
Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 9(2), 69-74. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.005
Umbach, R., Berryessa, C. M., & Raine, A. (2015). Brain imaging research on psychopathy: Implications for punishment, prediction, and treatment in youth and adults. Journal of criminal justice, 43(4), 295-306.
