The Culpability of Juvenile in our Justice System Essay Sample

10 October 2017


An dismaying state of affairs continues to endanger the modern society as the offense rate committed by young person is increasing in Numberss. The age of the culprits of offense is traveling down. An efficient juvenile justness system is really of import in one’s state to guarantee the protection of the immature wrongdoers.

This paper contains a description of the juvenile justness system and the processs being followed in the juvenile tribunals. The paper besides discusses the decreased personal blameworthiness of immature wrongdoers under the jurisprudence. The paper attempts to give an overview of the justness system and to depict grounds and major premises of the diminished personal blameworthiness of the juveniles.


The modern-day society is disturbed by the dismaying addition in the figure of young person who are engaged in condemnable activities. In the twelvemonth 2000. there were 2. 369. 400 apprehensions recorded affecting kids. and 363. 500 of these apprehensions were categorized as larceny. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( OJJDP ) remarked that larceny histories for the greatest cause of young person apprehension ( Einstein Law. 2008 ) .

This peculiar statistic raises considerable concern from the members of the society. peculiarly in footings of the immature children’s capableness to travel through a test. The young person of today’s universe are greatly different from the kids before. There is this intelligence event wherein five male childs beat violently a adult male and his boy. Harmonizing the Associated Press. the male child ended up throwing sticks and rocks to the adult male who was playing cricket with his boy. The adult male had a break on his cheek. fell down. had a bosom onslaught. and died. The male childs were charged and sentenced of two old ages in a young person detainment centre in England ( Young. 2008 ) .

The male childs were believed to be around the age of 10 to 12 old ages old. and it raised contention. but the tribunal says that they are accountable for the decease of the adult male and that the kids committed a offense ( Young. 2008 ) . The instance is rather bothering as it makes one think that kids can really ache or even kill people. The figure of kids who are able to continue their artlessness is traveling down over the unit of ammunition of the decennary. The overall consequence of the intensifying rate of the figure of kids engage in condemnable activities is rather annihilating as the age of the committers of offense goes down. Its impact to the society is really distressing.

Several lending factors in the society significantly influence kids to take part in juvenile offenses. For case. exposure to sex. force. and other harmful stuffs has an consequence on their point of view. Losing their childhood artlessness and nucleus values that should be present in them places them in a state of affairs which they are unable to manage or pull off. doing them vulnerable to perpetrate offenses ( Young. 2008 ) .

One of the facets of the juvenile justness system that is being debated is the blameworthiness of the kids. their competency in defying tribunal tests. and how they respond to intervention. The intelligence of an stripling may resemble that of grownups. but the other facets of their ego. like the psychosocial. is non to the full developed. They have hapless judgement because they are unprompted. They are susceptible to coerce from people around them. They besides do non to the full see the hereafter and what it holds for them. and they undermine the effects of the offense ( Steinberg. 2007 ) .

Their immatureness is a thing to see if they are competent in take parting in the proceedings of the tribunal tests. Young person who committed offenses can change the class of their lives. 10 per centum of the young person wrongdoers evolve in being chronic and frequent offense wrongdoers ( Steinberg. 2007 ) . The job of young person offense rooted in assorted causes that may act upon the young person in perpetrating themselves to activities that are harmful to others and to themselves to which they are incognizant of.

The sudden eroding of the nucleus values of kids remain as the chief perpetrator of the current state of affairs of young person wrongdoers. Parent must go on to steer their kids in the things they are exposed to for the consequence these might hold on their construct of ego.

Juvenile Justice System

A really of import facet of the overall justness system is the juvenile justness system where young person wrongdoers are tried and sentenced. It is rather hard to develop an effectual and just juvenile justness system. The policymakers are holding trouble in equilibrating the of import considerations in make up one’s minding this type of justness system. These are the public assistance of young person who committed offenses and how to guarantee public safety. Over the old ages. the juvenile justness system swung from one side to the other. unable to make up one’s mind which to follow ( Steinberg. 2007 ) . The history of the juvenile justness system verifies this peculiar circumstance. Early reformists view juvenile justness system as a system that is protective and seeks rehabilitation of the vulnerable kids who commit offenses. The indulgent intervention of the juvenile tribunals to youth wrongdoers raised concerns and negative comments from members of the society who are guaranting public safety. In response to the negative appraisal of the juvenile justness system. critics developed a system that punished young person for the offense they committed. The drastic alterations include minimal sentencing guidelines and transportation to the condemnable tribunals ( Dunn. 2008 ) .

During the early old ages. juveniles were treated similar grownups as they were reprehensively responsible for the offenses they committed. A common jurisprudence. nevertheless. saved kids who aged below seven old ages old due to the belief that they commit offenses accidentally. Progressive reformists. on the other manus. respond to the theories that the young person are being given justness in the grownup tribunal system. Hence. they developed a system protecting the vulnerable populations and the juvenile justness system was born which prioritizes the involvement of the kid. Rehabilitation is one of the best developments in the juvenile justness system as they thought of the developmental differences between adolescence and grownups. Adolescents are considered less responsible for their actions and behaviour due to their deficiency of competence and experience. Adolescents are besides more educable and susceptible to alter than grownups. Therefore. rehabilitation is proven effectual ( Dunn. 2008 ) .

In the modern-day society. a batch of people express their concern on the possible harsh intervention to juveniles upon transportation and its negative effects on their psychological wellbeing. The young person is one of the hoarded wealths of the state and should be protected by the justness system. but at today’s province of the justness system. tribunals are striping the right of these young person wrongdoers to get down anew.

Since the origin of the 20Thursdaycentury. every province in the state has prosecuted the bush leagues who violated the jurisprudence under the juvenile tribunal. The tribunals besides focused more on intervention. rehabilitation. and protection of the young person wrongdoers instead than penalizing them. In 1980s. there is a dramatic addition in the figure of offense affecting young person. and the concerns on public safety besides increased. In response to the dismaying state of affairs. the legislative assemblies of the 46 provinces lowered the age of young person tried in the grownup tribunal and do penalties more terrible in both juvenile and grownup tribunals. In the U. S. . more than 200. 000 young person wrongdoers are tried in the grownup tribunal each twelvemonth ( Steinberg. 2007 ) .

Tests taking topographic point in the juvenile tribunals chiefly focused on rehabilitation of the delinquent young persons who committed offenses. The adulthood of the young person wrongdoers are frequently non taken into history for it was established that juveniles lack adulthood than grownups. As there is an addition in figure of young person tried in grownup tribunals. inquiries were formulated sing their blameworthiness or their culpability for the offense and their competency in take parting in tribunal proceedings. These facets are relevant for these determine theirs capableness to take part to the full in deciding the instance ( Steinberg. 2007 ) .

Due Process in the Juvenile Court System

The function played by the juvenile justness system is like a parent who seeks the involvement of his kids. The proceedings are informal and protective. The judgement for offenses of young person wrongdoers is based on the background of the wrongdoer and non on the offense and penalty required. The sentences aim to render child’s demands and steer them to effectual intervention. The juveniles were secured of “confidential proceedings. flexible sentencing. rapid temperaments and the expungement of records” ( Dunn. 2008. p. 33 ) .

A polar alteration happened in the juvenile tribunal system due to the claims that certain of import elements are missing in the juvenile tribunal system. Some said that a kid must be given the right to a hearing. every bit good as the right to advocate in any of import tribunal proceeding. A instance that is comparatively of import and important must be transferred to the condemnable tribunal. In short. they argue that a juvenile tribunal system must follow a standard process in carry oning tests ( Dunn. 2008 ) .

Furthermore. it was claimed that the tribunal proceedings in the juvenile tribunal system lacks the cardinal constitutional rights given to the accused such as the right to the equal notice of charges. the right for a just and merely hearing. the right to seek advocate. the right to protect oneself in self-incrimination. and the right to confrontation and cross-examination. These claims easy transform the juvenile tribunal system into a condemnable tribunal. The sudden passage affects the important function played by the juvenile tribunal system. From their image as a rehabilitative system they bit by bit transform into a formal tribunal adhering procedural forms. The juvenile tribunal system resembled the grownup condemnable tribunal system ( Dunn. 2008 ) .

The resembling of the two tribunal systems increase the figure of offense rates affecting young person and the media coverage in the instances. peculiarly the flagitious offenses committed by young person. Many people began to oppugn the effectiveness of the juvenile tribunal system and their punitory manner in judging young person wrongdoers. In the recent old ages. juveniles were allowed to be tried in the grownup condemnable tribunals. As the juveniles were being transferred. they were deprived of the intervention and rehabilitation that would do them a functional citizen of the society and at their immature age. they were doomed to function their sentence in punitory establishments ( Dunn. 2008 ) .

Blameworthiness of Juvenile in our Justice System

One of the of import foundations of the U. S. justness system is culpability of the accused or the culprits of offense and non merely the basic premises of the offense. Conventionally. the tribunals consider assorted extenuating factors that may impact the badness of the discourtesy and the equal penalty for that peculiar discourtesy. Impaired decision-making is one of the considerations. It can be caused by mental unwellness or deceleration. Courts besides put into history the fortunes that lead the culprits of offense to transport out such offense. If there is a valid ground why the offense took topographic point. penalty will travel down finally. The background of the wrongdoer is besides considered. if the offense seems to be out of his nature and most likely non to go on once more. the sentence for that offense is lowered ( Steinberg. 2007 ) .

Scientists proved the difference in thought of striplings and grownups. They can perpetrate offense impetuously. but other societal and psychological facets must be put into consideration for it besides affects their behaviour. This is the facet of psychosocial adulthood. The mature rational ability is the facet of development closely examined by scientists. It was believed that by the age of 16. the rational ability of striplings closely resembles that of an grownup ( Steinberg. 2007 ) .

Another facet that determines the decreased blameworthiness of a juvenile is the short sighted determination devising. It is the ability of a individual to make up one’s mind based on short term effects of an action. Adolescents rarely based their determinations on future effects a peculiar action. They formulate determinations by weighing wagess and hazards on their short term effects on the individual. Adolescents besides seek wagess and neglect the hazard which frequently is the perpetrator of their bad judgement ( Steinberg. 2007 ) .

Adolescents are besides characterized by hapless impulse control. They take less clip in sing their actions than grownups. Their impulsiveness is manifested in their behaviour and actions. Another characteristic that defines the decreased blameworthiness of juveniles is their exposure to peer force per unit area. These force per unit areas make them take hazards that they should non take. Adolescents fear being in the out-group and be ostracized by their friends. that is why they take the hazard without holding much idea of the effects that will ensue from their actions. Adolescents are immature individuals that are holding trouble doing the right determination because of their deficiency of experience and inability to contemplate on the effects of their behaviour. They favor immediate wagess like the blessing of their friends than the long term effects of perpetrating a offense ( Steinberg. 2007 ) .

Juveniles are spared from the sentence of decease punishment as the U. S. Supreme Court ordered that under certain fortunes. juvenile can non be sentenced with decease punishment because of their lessened personal blameworthiness. The tribunal identified three major differences of young person wrongdoer which are below 18 old ages old and grownups. The tribunal said that young person wrongdoers can non be classified with dependability among worst wrongdoers ( American Bar Association [ ABA ] Division for Public Education. 2007 ) .

First. the young person wrongdoers show deficiency of adulthood and non to the full developed sense of duty unlike the grownups which make them most likely to perpetrate unpleasant determinations. Second. the juveniles are more vulnerable to peer force per unit area and they have less control over their environment. Last. adolescent’s individuality is non to the full established that makes the offense they commit as a manifestation of their hunt for their existent individuality and service as cogent evidence of their unretrievable character ( ABA Division for Public Education. 2007 ) . These grounds suggest that there is a major difference in the blameworthiness of juvenile and grownups upon perpetrating a offense. The personal lessened blameworthiness of juveniles lowers their sentence or judgement for the offense they committed.

Another consideration that has been argued in tribunal is the ability of the juveniles to take part in the condemnable proceedings. There is a major difference in the blameworthiness in perpetrating an alleged offense and the competency of juvenile to stand in a test in tribunal. The latter chiefly refers to the mental province of a individual while the tribunal proceedings are taking topographic point. The U. S. justness system requires the metal competency of the accused of an alleged offense and their apprehension of the processs that will take topographic point and the ability to help their ain advocates. Questions were raised in the tests for juveniles in condemnable grownup tribunals as to whether they have the competency and adulthood to transport out the condemnable proceedings ( Steinberg. 2007 ) .

Researches found out that juvenile under the age of 14 old ages old have a limited apprehension on the legal procedures that will take topographic point. They can non to the full pass on the relevant information about their instance. the manner the grownup wrongdoers do. They do non hold adult-like determination devising ability ; their psychosocial facet is non to the full mature and can non do adult-like judgements ( Dunkel & A ; Drenkhahn. 2003 ) .

All of these furuncles down to the observation that to enable the immature wrongdoers to take part to the full in the condemnable proceedings and established competency in tribunal. they need to be assisted by “specific back uping processs. rites. inquiries and explanations” and most particularly professional aid ( Dunkel & A ; Drenkhahn. 2003. p. 680 ) .

If the young person wrongdoers have personal diminished blameworthiness and are spared for equal punishments of their offenses. how are they able to render justness on the portion of the victims? Should the parents be punished excessively? Parents should ne’er neglect to give counsel to their kids. and kids perpetrating offenses merely shows deficiency of it. Parents should be held accountable for their children’s actions. Since the immature wrongdoers have a lessened personal blameworthiness. absence of just and merely judgement fail to fulfill the other party.

In some topographic points like Halifax in United Kingdom. parents are held apt and are required to pay for the belongings offense their childs committed. The Halifax council passed a gesture enabling such jurisprudence ( CBC News. 2006 ) .

The aim of such gesture is to deter kids in prosecuting themselves in such offenses and to farther promote the parents to steer and guard their kids. This is merely possible in belongings offenses. but a specific jurisprudence embracing a penalty for parents when their kids commit flagitious offenses is non yet available. The absence of such jurisprudence is one of the factors of the addition in the figure of offenses committed by immature wrongdoers.

Personally. I think that parents should be held responsible for their children’s behaviours and actions. They should hold sympathy on the victim and somehow wage regard to the household and relations of the victim. Compensation to the amendss is indispensable.


An alarming state of affairs is easy emerging in the modern-day society ; there is a drastic addition in the figure of young person engaged in condemnable activities. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ( OJJDP ) noted that larceny is the offense to which striplings largely engage themselves in. Still. the mere fact that the age of the culprits of offense is traveling down is truly distressing.

The constitution of an effectual and efficient juvenile justness system is relevant in a nation’s entire justness system. The function it plays is really important ; it aims to protect the rights and surrogate intervention of the immature wrongdoers. A good juvenile justness system should promote rehabilitation instead than penalty for there is a bigger opportunity that the immature wrongdoers can change their lives than grownups.

The chief concern in giving judgements on young person wrongdoers is their blameworthiness or culpability for the offense they committed. The striplings have diminished personal blameworthiness due to certain fortunes and major differences they have with grownups upon perpetrating a offense. Should the parent be punished excessively because of their children’s offense? Parents should be held accountable for the behaviours and actions of their kids. Perpetrating a serious offense reflects deficiency of counsel of parents or defenders of kids. Parents should somehow aid in giving justness on the victims and seek aid for the rehabilitation of their ain kids. They should someway be a tool in deciding the instance and carry their kids to the right way for them non to perpetrate another serious offense.


American Bar Association Division for Public Education. ( 2007 ) .Dialogue on Youth and Justice. Chicago IL: American Bar Association. Retrieved September 9. 2008 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. abanet. org/publiced/features/DYJfull. pdf

CBC News. ( 2006. October 11 ) . Parents should pay for kids’ offenses: Halifax Council.CBCNews. ca. Retrieved September 9. 2008 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. complete blood count. ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2006/10/11/parent-responsible. hypertext markup language.

Dunkel. F. & A ; Drenkhahn. K. ( 2003 ) .Youth Violence: New Patterns and Local Responses- Experiences in East and West. Germany: Forum Verlag Godesberg

Dunn. C. ( 2008 ) . Condemning our young person to lives as felons: Imprisoning kids as grownups.Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest. Spring 2008. 30–50. Retrieved September 8. 2008 from hypertext transfer protocol: //law. Richmond. edu/rjolpi/Issues_Archived/2008_Spring/dunn. pdf.

Einstein Law. ( 2008 ) . Juvenile offense.LawyerShop. Retrieved September 8. 2008 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lawyershop. com/practice-areas/criminal-law/juvenile-law/crimes/ .

Steinberg. L. ( 2007. October 25 ) . Juveniles in the justness system: New grounds from research on stripling development.Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars. Retrieved September 8. 2008 from hypertext transfer protocol: //familyimpactseminars. org/doc. asp? d=s_wifis25c01. pdf.

Young. A. S. ( 2008 ) . Contemplations: Children perpetrating offense and the decease of artlessness.Helium. Retrieved September 8. 2008 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. He. com/items/657039-reflections-children-committing-crime-and-the-death-of-innocence.

A limited
time offer!
Get authentic custom
ESSAY SAMPLEwritten strictly according
to your requirements