Psychology
In the article of Eckholm, he focused on the importance of juvenile courts by explaining how the juveniles face lifelong sentences despite the Supreme Court decisions that are favourable to the minors. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court in its recent decisions in 2010 and 2012 prevented to use the mandatory life sentences on youth offenders who had been convicted with murder by explaining that they are less culpable compared to adults. This is in accordance to the concept of restorative justice, where the juvenile delinquents should be given the chance to redeem themselves (Eckholm, “Juveniles Facing Lifelong Terms Despite Rulings”). Eckholm cited the case of Florida, where one accused Gridine, who was a minor, along with his 12-year old companion attempted to rob a man in 2009. As the man moved away, Gridine fired a shot that hit the victim’s head and shoulder, causing him minor injuries. Despite the minor injuries he caused to the victim, Gridine was tried as an adult, and entered a plea of guilty to the charges of attempted murder and robbery, thinking that the court will give him leniency as a youth offender. However, the judge classified the crime committed by Gridinene as “heinous”, and ordered 70 years of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole. With this sentence, it is presumed that Gridine will be released after he turns 77 years old (Eckholm, “Juveniles Facing Lifelong Terms Despite Rulings”).
Eckholm explains that the 2010 ruling in the case of Graham v. Florida disallowed the imposition of life sentences without parole among youth offenders who have not been charged of murder. This was reiterated in the case of Miller v. Alabama which was decided in 2012, where the Supreme Court held that the court cannot automatically impose life imprisonment to juveniles who have been convicted with the crime of murder (Eckholm, “Juveniles Facing Lifelong Terms Despite Rulings”). Hence, there is a need for a juvenile court for the benefit of the youth offenders so that they will not be tried as adults. Rehabilitation is essential for the youth offenders in order to monitor their re-entry to mainstream society as part of the concept of restorative justice.
Juvenile Historical Background
The history of the juvenile justice system started when adult crimes and juvenile crimes were separated. The courts drew a line between the actions of the adult and the child and the discernment of their actions. When a child who commits a crime is below 14 years of age, there is a presumption that he is incapable of committing the crime. This presumption will change if the child has discernment at the time to crime was committed or he can already distinguish right from wrong. In such instance, the child shall be convicted and made to suffer the consequences of his actions.
In the article of Grissom, she stated in Texas, the state had been enhancing the juvenile court system by committing the youth offenders to local detention facilities. This move on the part of Texas is a big shift rather than to send the juvenile offenders to large institutions. Such move is a deviation from the previous juvenile lock-ups that is being implemented by the juvenile justice system where the youth offenders have to be tried as adults. Under the juvenile system, the youth offenders who committed minor violations shall be closer to their homes since the state changed their management strategies to rehabilitate the youth offenders (Grissom, “Trial Run for Revised Juvenile Justice System”).
Juvenile Supreme Court
In the article of Rosenberg, she emphasized on the need to enact a legislative proposal to establish a Youth Court Jury who to prevent more offenders within the juvenile justice system. The special youth courts shall cater to youth offenders who are between the ages of 16 to 17 years, who have not committed violent crimes (Rosenberg,“For Young Offenders, Hope in a Jury of their Peers”). She affirmed that there is a need to separate the adult criminal justice system from the juvenile justice system since the youth offenders should not be tried as adults for the crimes they are being charged with. The creation of special youth courts shall be similar to creating a Juvenile Supreme Court will be beneficial for the youth offenders. Under this system, the juries shall be composed of the peers of the offenders. The intention of establishing this kind of court is intended to prevent to youth to re-offend. In this kind of system, it is considered as an alternative form of justice since the juries, judges and the defendants are all teenagers (Rosenberg,“For Young Offenders, Hope in a Jury of their Peers”). With this kind of system, the teens shall have some sense of hope by knowing that the judge and jury are their peers, who shall be more lenient in rendering decisions involving the violations that were committed. Some of the crimes that will be tried include minor offenses such as shoplifting, fist fights, spraying graffiti with gangs and possession of prohibited drugs.
Works Cited:
Eckholm, Erik. “Juveniles Facing Lifelong Terms Despite Rulings”. New York
Times.com. Web. Retrieved on 12 February 25, 2014, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/us/juveniles-facing-lifelong-terms-despite-rulings.html.
Grissom, Brandi. “Trial Run for Revised Juvenile Justice System”. New York Times.com.
Web. Retrieved on 12 February 25, 2014, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/us/trial-run-for-revised-juvenile-justice-system.html
Rosenberg, Tina. “For Young Offenders, Hope in a Jury of Their Peers”. New York Times.com.Web. Retrieved on 12 February 2014, from
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/for-teen-offenders-hope-in-a-jury-of-their-peers/.
