Since the juvenile court was started more than a hundred years ago, a basic assumption underlying the juvenile court has been that juvenile offenders shouldn't go through the adult criminal courts. The juvenile court was created to handle juvenile offenders on the basis of their youth rather than their crimes. The purpose of juvenile court is treatment and guidance rather than punishment. During the 1980s and 1990s, the public called for getting tough with juveniles and trying them as adults. Many states passed laws making it easier to try certain youthful offenders as adults; some states considered the radical proposal of abolishing juvenile courts. Juvenile courts should be abolished
Supporters of getting rid of juvenile courts center their arguments on the need to punish juvenile criminals and a concern for juveniles' rights. 1. The juvenile court is founded on false premises because its purpose is to shield youths from the consequences of their own actions. 2. The juvenile court fails to deter juvenile violence.
3. The current juvenile crime problem requires that we punish juvenile offenders in order to deter the next generation of juveniles from becoming predators. 4. Justice demands that juvenile courts be abolished—if juveniles are tried in adult courts, they will be afforded their full array of constitutional rights. Juvenile courts should not be abolished
Many experts believe abolishing the juvenile court will only make matters worse. 1. The premise of the juvenile court is sound—since children have not fully matured, they shouldn't be held to the same standards of accountability as adults. 2. The purpose of the juvenile court is to treat, not to deter. 3. Changing the social environment in which juveniles live is a more effective way to reduce juvenile violence than punishing juvenile offenders in adult courts. 4. While the denial of full constitutional rights for juveniles is sometimes a problem, the juvenile court's mission...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document