Juvenile and Criminal Justice Systems

¶ … Juvenile and Adult Justice

Juvenile and Criminal Justice Systems

Similarities and differences: Juvenile and adult criminal justice systems

The goals of the juvenile justice and the adult criminal justice systems are fundamentally distinct. The goal of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate the offender and to provide aid and assistance to the juvenile, enabling him or her to become a more productive adult (La Mance 2010). In contrast, the purpose of the adult system is one of fact-finding, and is designed to see 'justice' done on a societal level: in the case of a guilty offender, this usually means him or her 'paying a debt' to society in the form of some kind of punishment. However, the adult system still does offer many rehabilitative programs for the majority of convicts, including educational and vocational training. And, depending on the state, if the severity of the crime is deemed significant enough, the juvenile may be tried in an adult court.

Another difference between the two systems is in regards to the formality of the proceedings. Juveniles have different rights from adults: for example, a juvenile procedure is called a hearing; there is no trial by jury and a judge rules whether evidence is admissible or inadmissible. The standards for admissibility tend to be much less strict than in adult court cases. A juvenile is ruled 'delinquent' or 'not delinquent,' while an adult is found 'guilty' or 'not guilty' (La Mance 2010). A final difference is the types of crimes juveniles may be found guilty of, versus adults. Certain offenses juveniles can be found guilty of would not be crimes if they were performed by adults. These are known as 'status' offenses including truancy; violating curfews for persons of a specific age; drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco; running away from home; or being incorrigible and disobeying parents and guardians (Juvenile law: status offenses, 2013, Nolo). In contrast, there are no specific offenses performed by adults that children cannot be found guilty of, although a very young child who is accused of a crime like murder will likely be treated with greater leniency than an adult by virtue of his or her age.

However, in some instances, juveniles may be punished more severely than adults, and are generally given longer probation sentences for crimes such as being disorderly (Komisaruk 2007). This notion of 'the worst of both worlds' was reflected in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Kent v. The United States (1966). Before Kent, it was generally found that the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process could be waived for certain classes of persons if there was a compensatory benefit, such as the aim of the juvenile court system to rehabilitate the offender (Chapter 4, 1999, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National Report: 90). But in Kent, the Court found that such 'compensatory benefits' were often lacking in actual practice for juveniles and juveniles often had fewer rights than adults but were granted harsher punishments for the same offenses.