The American Judicial System: Does It Favor the Criminal?Essay Preview: The American Judicial System: Does It Favor the Criminal?Report this essayOUTLINEI. IntroductionII. Youthful OffendersA. Mistaken Notion of LeniencyB. Proof of Increased Effort to Criminalize Youthful Offenders1. Stronger Penalties2. Prison PopulationC. Preventative AffectsIII. Drug & Violent CrimesA. Mistaken Notion of LeniencyB. “Get Tuff” AttitudesIV. Incarceration IssuesV. ConclusionTable of ContentsThe American Judicial System: Does it favor the criminal?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxsubmitted toxxxxxxxxxxBusiness Law InstructorENG xxx: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxMarch 26, 2000The American Judicial System: Does it favor the criminal?Statement of PurposeAs crime in America seems to be decreasing, reports from law enforcement experts state that: violent crimes are expected to increase (Butterfield 6). Many people feel that the American Judicial System treats the criminal as a victim, therefor, favoring the criminal. The American judicial system, however, has taken an attitude that “Perpetrators not only deserve blame but are worthy of it, in the fullest, most human sense of the word” (Reidinger 98). Despite the popular belief that the American Judicial System favors the criminal, in reality, this system imposes strict penalties in the majority of criminal defense cases in this country.
Youthful OffendersCrime in the United States appears to be increasing and gives the general publica mistaken notion of leniency toward youthful offenders. Underage students on college campuses, for instance, continue consuming alcohol at alarming rates; yet, some colleges merely fine students rather than demanding them to face their legal punishment. Most psychologists maintain the theory that a young child who commits a cold-blooded rape and murder cannot tell the difference between “fantasy and reality” leaving the public to feel this child has gotten away with murder (Adler n.pg.). According to a report from the Justice Department, all states may now charge juveniles as adults giving judges and prosecutors the power to file major youth felony cases in adult courts (Adler). These new changes in law have, in fact, led to stiffer penalties and increase prison sentencing.
[…]
On May 3, the US National Youth Justice Project (YJS) conducted a groundbreaking study on youth in court. YJS found that only 11 out of 13 kids in court had committed a new felony, compared to the 16 percent who had previously committed a single misdemeanor crime:
[… ]
In 2012, the number of youth in custody fell by 17 percent to 29 million; from 22 percent to 18 million each year. For young people in custody to commit a felony is to commit a crime in the United States, which requires them to obtain a probation, educational and vocational training, and a record of physical activity (admissibility); to register as a sex offender; and to serve a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 15 years (p>
Youthful OffendersCrime
, Adler n.pg. 18). The decrease in child victims represents a significant decline in the “nurture” of juvenile delinquents (YJS. N. YJS) (p> 18).
There is the “praise the rule” argument that youth must be held accountable by their parents when making decisions about their own well-being, not as a means to deter crime but as a way to help children rehabilitate themselves. While this may sound like good law enforcement advice, many parents who have been involved in court disputes with a young victim see the use of juvenile prison facilities as a way to deter crime. Indeed, a recent RAND study finds that a high proportion of children in low-risk juvenile detention facilities (8.6 percent) actually are not punished for minor crimes (Cotter n.p.). Furthermore, even children raised in these low-risk facilities find that their probation has been more successful than an adult’s probation in deterring violent crime (Cotter n.p.). Yet the federal youth offenders program at YJS remains unbalanced, which creates additional problems.
[/…]
We see in general the general tendency to think a parent’s decisionmaking as about her “trustworthiness in child development/behavior” rather than as part of her parental relationship (Scholz n.p.). To be sure, this view does not take into account children’s parents’ choices but the decisions of their children, which may be what is expected of children when “being safe in their own home is paramount” (Adler n.p.). Yet as the US Department of Justice (DOJ) reported, “A majority of child [sentencing] judges, including the Supreme Court’s four in 1989, have concluded that parents and children face a special burden to decide the juvenile justice system.” A 2005 Justice Department report found that “approximately 100 percent of juvenile court decisions are reversed in court within a year (Scholz n.p.). A disproportionate share of juvenile judge decisions are reversed in court in one case (Foster and Algren 2005). Moreover, most juvenile court judges are considered “overqualified” by many federal agencies in finding and ruling in juvenile criminal cases (Scholz n.p.).
In addition, many judges don’t do the research required by the civil juvenile diversion commission and make a decision based on the evidence of a parent’s “accusation of delinquent child behavior,” but instead rely on the “child [child] development and behavioral studies.” This, coupled with the fact that many juvenile court adjudication systems have long been designed by the public to minimize evidence of criminal criminal behavior, means that many public defendants are not the likely candidate to make
The judicial system has also proven its effectiveness by the rise in the number of juveniles convicted as adults between 1985 and 1997 (Johnson 1A).In 1997, the state of Michigan also enacted a law that permits the state to prosecute children of any age as an adult when the crime is violent and has met certain criteria (Leinward 3A). Most recently, California has claimed the “nations toughest crackdown on juvenile crime” by allowing prosecutors rather than judges to make the decision as to whether children as young as 14 should be tried as adults (Booth A03). Many states have approved that juveniles who commit minor offenses can be held liable for maximum penalties and mandatory jail sentences. Massachusetts, for instance, passed An Act to Provide for the Prosecution of Violent Juvenile Offenders in the Criminal Courts of the Commonwealth effective October 1, 1996, which allows for rapid prosecution of crimes committed by juveniles (Young 42).
California and other states have been particularly quick to use juvenile drug laws to reduce violent crime ≄ by using less extreme penalties, their laws have reduced or disappeared from the country’s criminal justice system≤ the number of juveniles charged with crime of any crime decreased from 446 in 1999 to only 2,400 in 2000. In addition, California has continued to use mandatory juvenile incarceration laws that apply to the drug trade during the period 1996 through 2012. California also implemented a Juvenile Justice Initiative to assist law enforcement agencies with the identification and sentencing of juveniles, especially in states where juveniles are the most likely to commit violent crimes (Schwartz 9A). California also has provided certain juvenile assistance programs to juvenile offenders who are in need of a rehabilitation and intervention program (Booth A04, B. Schwartz 9A). The recent and consistent increase in incarceration rates in California highlights the need for public-sustained reform to prevent juvenile diversion, reduce the likelihood of reoffending or, conversely, reduce juvenile crime (Young 32A, B. Schwartz 9A).
The Supreme Court has recognized the need to identify and treat offenders and to apply the legal framework developed by the United States and other industrialized nations with care (see Rambam 2000, 2000). The Supreme Court has also recognized the need to distinguish between, on the one hand, the offenses of juveniles and the crimes of adults (Booth 28). A recent appellate review concluded that a state statute authorized the state to prosecute juveniles as adults for the first time was not a comprehensive, fair or effective approach to juvenile court. The Court found that the juvenile court system served adequate training to support the judicial system under the criminal courts system in the following areas: The role of youth as jurors and as judges. The role of youth as individuals or groups in juvenile justice. The role of juvenile justice as a training mechanism for the state. The importance of evidence-based sentencing and adjudication and sentencing of youth, including the role role of judges in the juvenile justice system (Booth 35A). State and county prosecutors generally agreed that juvenile prosecutions are not the same as sentencing for life. The role of juvenile courts to hold youth accountable and to set guidelines for the juvenile court system to be successful (Booth 30). The role of child protection agencies in reducing drug and alcohol misuse. The role of youth as leaders in juvenile justice. The role of state and county prosecutor’s office. The role of juvenile court and juvenile drug enforcement agencies. The role of juvenile courts and state juvenile court services as a resource for community outreach, community supervision, prevention, diversion, and rehabilitation.
In summary, the Court recognized the need to examine the impact on the American criminal justice system of the juvenile justice system to distinguish between the juvenile justice system and the adult criminal justice system through the use of the judicial process as a framework and as a means for decision making in sentencing decisions. It recognized that the courts have the power to address these issues through reforms for youth as adults. The State has made substantial progress with regard to the use of juvenile courts ⊿.
<
The State has also made significant progress in the use of juvenile juvenile court as a means for juvenile prosecution. The State has committed to providing increased juvenile justice authority to a subset of juvenile defendants serving sentences under the Juvenile Law Reform Act of 1998 (B. Schwartz 9A). In some cases, such as Florida, the use of juvenile courts has enabled these defendants to defend their children against criminal charges after the court has already awarded the juvenile defendant a penalty. State law has recognized that juvenile court has the power not limited by juvenile law to address the need for prosecution in juvenile proceedings.
<
In addition, the
All [14-, 15- and 16- year-olds] charged with first and second degree murder will be automatically tried in adult court, and receive an adult sentence if convicted; a first-degree murder conviction results in life without parole; a second-degree murder conviction results in life with parole eligibility after 15 years. These sentences will be served in adult correctional facilities. However, thanks to the state-based, nonpartisan group, Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CJJ), juveniles convicted of murder will at least be housed separately from adults in “youthful offender units” until age 17. (43)
The severity of the punishment juvenile offenders now receive, as a result of their crimes is a prime example of the decrease in juvenile crime in America.
Proof of increased effort to criminalize youthful offenders can also be seen through prison population and arrests. As the number of children committing violent crimes in America increases, the number of arrests and imprisonment