
Imagine a thirteen year-old girl standing before a jury in adult court, waiting to hear a verdict. Imagine a seventeen year-old boy sitting in a prison cell surrounded by rapists, murderers, and robbers. The fact is, these children should not be in this situation. The juvenile crime debate has been prominent for decades. Juvenile courts are highly criticized because of their sentencing methods. As a result, the states have gradually adopted laws to waive juveniles into the adult court system. The passing of these laws have created an uproar among the citizens of America. Concerned parents, teachers, psychologists, law-enforcement, and even some judges are fighting to get rid of the juvenile to adult court waiver. However, state lawmakers continue to advocate for the abolishment of the juvenile court and the establishment of even more juvenile waiver laws. Ultimately, juveniles should not be placed in adult courts/prisons because it does not reduce the amount of juvenile crime, and it negatively effects the child's physical, mental, and emotional capabilities.

 Children who are in the adult court system suffer from long term negative effects. Oftentimes, the juvenile court will expunge (erase) an offenders record if they discontinue their destructive behavior. However, expungement is not an option in the adult court. Children who are in the adult criminal justice system endure legal, political, and socioeconomic consequences (Allard and Young). These consequences include limited employment options. Most employers require a criminal background check, so many juveniles in the adult system will not be able to find jobs when they become adults themselves. Children with adult convictions could also have their voting rights taken away from them before they are even eligible to vote (Allard and Young). With these criminal records on file, children will never be able to make a life for themselves in the future.

Juveniles should not be tried, sentenced, or incarcerated in the adult system because they do not have the appropriate moral capacity. Children are less culpable because their minds are not fully developed. The prefrontal lobe of the brain, which is responsible for personality traits and decision making, is not fully developed until age twenty. Scientists say that this lobe is essential because it hinders humans from behaving inappropriately (Reaves). Therefore, children this age have not reached the full amount of capacity physically, intellectually, or emotionally (Van Vleet). The majority of juveniles that are transferred to the adult court are not accurately examined for mental or emotional maturity (Allard and Young). If young offenders are not properly checked for maturity, then the prosecution has no way of knowing whether or not they are emotionally responsible for their crimes. A child that is lacking in intellectual capacity does not realize the severity of their actions. Therefore, he/she should not be punished as harshly as those who are fully aware of the crime and its consequences. Some argue that if a child is developed enough to commit a heinous crime (such as homicide or murder), then they are capable of recognizing the consequences. This may be true for some cases, but not all of them. In fact, when children are waived to adult court for homicide, oftentimes it's not because they need to be harshly punished, it's because of the retribution aspect (Van Vleet). The community and the families of the victim feel a sense of closure knowing that the young offender was thoroughly punished for his/her actions.

Juvenile offenders do not have the mental capacity to be defendants in their own trial. According to recent studies, a child's brain is too immature to understand their legal rights in a trial process (Allard and Young). A juvenile's inability to understand the adult court system causes complications while carrying out a trial. When a child is questioned by a jury they oftentimes get confused and contradict themselves, which makes it more difficult for the jury to determine a verdict (Allard and Young). This skepticism can be detrimental to a court case because it leads to unreliable evidence. Young people tend to leave out information that could cause harm to their family or friends, and they emphasize the information that can help their case (Allard and Young). If the juvenile offender is constantly changing their story, the case is drawn out longer than necessary. Simple procedures, such as pre-trial interviews, take up a lot of extra time that prosecutors don't have (Allard and Young). These problems can be avoided as long as prosecutors allow juveniles to remain in the juvenile justice system.  

Rehabilitation programs are the most effective way to punish a juveniles for his/her actions. There are many therapeutic programs that can not only serve as a punishment for juveniles, but also teach them valuable lessons that can help them in the future. For example, vocational programs help juveniles develop valuable job skills instead of becoming involved in criminal activity. Pre-intervention programs are also effective because they become involved before the juvenile can go from committing status offenses to serious crimes. These programs also provide the children with adult guidance, which is something that every child needs in his/her life. Surprisingly, treatment programs are also more punitive for juveniles because they simply don't want to participate. Children (especially teenagers) are not willing to seriously commit to the level that these programs require. In fact, sometimes juveniles ask to be incarcerated instead because they are given a set amount of time for their sentence, and they do not have to emotionally commit (Van Vleet).

Adult prisons prove to be the most destructive institution for juveniles to carry out their punishments. According to an article published by the Justice Policy Institute, children who are incarcerated with adults are five times more likely to be raped, 50 percent more likely to be assaulted, and 9.9 times more likely to commit suicide than children who are held in juvenile prisons (Schiraldi and Zeidenburg). Subjecting children to these serious risks is completely immoral. People in modern society claim that they are against rape, assault, and suicide, but legislators are throwing children into an environment where it's almost inevitable. Children also need an education, which is something that is not available to them in adult prisons. Very few adult correctional facilities provide the special educational, recreational, and health services/ staff that children need in order to thrive (Allard and Young). The lack of these basic needs will cause children in adult prisons to develop incorrectly, which will affect their ability to succeed later on in life. Legislators are prohibiting children from creating a life for themselves, which is the right of every American. 

Incarcerating juveniles with adults is ineffective because it does not produce deterrence. In fact, children who are incarcerated with adults are more likely to reoffend than those who are in juvenile facilities (Van Vleet). According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, children who are in the adult criminal justice system are 34% more likely to be re-arrested for violent or any other type of crime (Campaign for Youth Justice). The whole purpose of creating a waiver to the adult system is to produce deterrence. Legislators believed if a juvenile is waivered to adult court, the harsh punishment will teach them a lesson and will prevent them from committing future crime. However, legislators are not getting the waiver effect that they wanted. Their rush to impose adult status is not reducing crime or public safety (Van Vleet). If you place a child in an environment where he/she is surrounded by criminals, of course they will grow up to be criminals. As John DiIulio, former head of the conservative Council on Crime in America puts it, "most kids who get into serious trouble with the law need adult guidance. And they won't find suitable role models in prison. Jailing youth with adult felons under Spartan conditions will merely produce more street gladiators" (Schiraldi and Zeidenberg). 

Many politicians believe that instead of putting juveniles in rehabilitation programs, they should be placed in boot camps. A popular phenomenon among legislators for juvenile sentencing is the "get-tough" philosophy. Lawmakers believe that requiring children to participate in boot camps (while they are in incarcerated in adult prison) will shock them into realization and allow them to "toughen up" (Van Vleet). As a result of this attitude, legislators are starting to lower the age at which a juvenile can be waived to adult court (Greenwood). Lowering the age of waiver would allow them to place children in boot camps that aren't provided in the juvenile system. However, "get- tough" initiatives are proven to be ineffective. According to a research study on the impact of boot camps on juveniles, boot camps have no impact on recidivism rates (Van Vleet). Therefore, legislators should stop trying to implement the "get-tough" philosophy to reduce recidivism among juveniles.

The juvenile court is doing an adequate job in preventing juveniles from committing crime. When the juvenile court was first established, their original goal was to rehabilitate juvenile delinquents who commit status offenses, such as running away from home or skipping class. However, the increase in juvenile crime has kept the juvenile court from upholding their original mission. For instance, in 1994, 30.9 percent of serious crime (assault, arson, murder) was committed by children under the age of 18 (Funk). As a result, the court is starting to incarcerate young offenders in juvenile prisons instead of treatment programs as a form of punishment. The juvenile system is becoming more and more like the adult system each day. Rather than assigning all juvenile cases to treatment/ rehabilitation programs, the juvenile court is starting to base the sentence on the seriousness of the offense (Van Vleet). This shows that the juvenile court is starting to take initiative by changing their original ideals in order to reduce the amount of violent juvenile crime. Those who believe the juvenile court should be abolished argue that since the juvenile court is starting to become more like the adult court, then there is no point in having the juvenile system anymore. This is not rational, because the juvenile court is still needed for those who commit status offenses. For example, a child who ran away from home does not deserve to be tried in the adult court system.  

It's unnecessary to waive juveniles up to adult court because of sentencing discounts. The juvenile court is very lenient on their methods of sentencing because of their morals of rehabilitation. Likewise, the adult courts are also very lenient on sentencing juveniles. Oftentimes, juveniles that are tried in adult court are let out on bail or placed on probation (Van Vleet). Juveniles also receive sentencing discounts because of jurisdiction laws in both the juvenile court and adult court. Even if a violent youth offender is waived up to adult court, they still would not serve a proportionate amount of time for their actions. For example, if a 15 year- old boy committed first degree murder, he would only be sentenced to fifteen to twenty-five years with eligible parole. If an adult were to commit the same crime, he/she would receive the death penalty or a life sentence without parole. Many legislators who are in favor of abolishing the juvenile court often believe that there should still be some exceptions for youth offenders during trial in adult court (Yellen). If legislators provide exceptions for youth in the adult system, then there is ultimately no point in waiving them up to adult court. Instead, legislators should be focusing more on improving the juvenile justice system rather than abolishing it. An improved juvenile justice system would allow children and adults to be separated, but still allow juveniles to be sentenced appropriately for their actions. 

A perfect example of the corrupt court system is the case of Sean Shevlino. Sean Shevlino was 16 years old when he robbed several local grocery stores in Mount Pleasant, SC. Shevlino did not use any actual weapons to commit this crime, but he did use a toy gun. When he was finally captured by the police, the prosecutor offered him a 10-year sentence in adult court. He tried to hold off on accepting the plea by enrolling in a rehabilitation program called Three Springs. During his time at Three Springs, he was diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder.  Eventually, he was charged with armed robbery and sentenced to 10 years in adult prison (Merrefield). Shevlino should not have been incarcerated in an adult prison. Even though he committed an adult crime, his offenses were very low stake because he did not have a weapon. Treatment programs would have been more beneficial in his case. Three Springs proved to be extremely beneficial to Shevlino. He claims that he was able to manage his anger and prepare to reenter society with a clean slate (Merrefield). Therefore, prosecutors should have allowed him to stay at Three Springs to carry out his sentence. But instead, they had to make an example out of Sean by placing him in an adult prison. Shevlino was officially placed in Kirkland maximum security prison in 2006, and he is currently still serving his 10-year sentence (Merrefield). Sean's sentence was extremely uncalled for. Instead of staying at Three Springs where he could properly get a handle on his oppositional defiant disorder, Sean was forced to finish out his teen years in a hostile environment that made his condition worse.

The juvenile crime debate is a very popular and important debate. For many years, children have been subjected to harsh treatment by state legislation. This harsh treatment is the result of poor decision making among state lawmakers. The juvenile court is doing their part to prevent juvenile crime, but lawmakers do not see their contribution. The adult system is full of negative influences that could have a significant impact on the children that are placed into it. These children are forced to endure physical, mental, and emotional pain. The worse (and perhaps the most ironic) part about it all is that this pain is unnecessary because it will not reduce the amount of juvenile crime. However, state legislations still believe that placing children in the adult system is effective. In order to stop juveniles from being waived to adult system, the juvenile justice system must become more assertive. If the juvenile court system expands upon their variety of treatment options they will become stronger, which will convince state legislators to allow them to handle the majority of juvenile cases. If children are handled in juvenile court and adults are handled in adult court, the criminal justice system will be less corrupt and the juvenile crime debate will ultimately be at peace.    

 

