Should Juvenile Offenders Be Tried Same as Adults

A number of people have tended to agree that young or youthful offenders should be tried as adults and even be transferred to the adult system (Endres & Karen, 2004). One reason is that they create danger or a threat to the security and safety of other young inmates. This is enhanced by the severity or the concreteness of their offences, hard punishment or even the history of repeated crimes and general forms of rehabilitation. This means that some juveniles have crime histories that supersede that of many adults and such should not be included in the same bracket as young offenders. The nature of crime alienates a persons and the age factor in this case is not considered. However, it should well be noted that juvenile courts were set up not only to cater for young offenders but mainly to deal with non violent crimes that could be committed by them. Once this rule is sabotaged then the case becomes different and the adult system becomes refuge (Joanne & Minacker, 2009).

One aspect that should be looked at is the distinction which is perceived between persons of various ages under the stipulated law together with their intellect, emotional concerns and their social progress (Trahan & Dominique & 2009). This matter highlights the issue of whether a boundary is necessary between adults and juveniles in terms of criminal matters. Is a crime different when committed by an individual of a certain age or more importantly is the effect of the crime changed by it? My answer is an emphatic no as we all know a crime is a crime no matter who commits it and just as the consequences are equal so is the age of commitment and thus the system of judgment and administration.

Another basic fact is the integration of development psychology which brings into focus physical, mental, emotional and even the social developmental structure of human beings. The psychologists in this field have come up with a study referred to as normative development which focuses on the dealing of young criminals and the adult ones in respect to the legal framework (Becker & Howard, 1960). Scientifically this development specifies the age of juvenile consideration as from 12 to 17, but does it really call for the difference in treatment of juvenile offenders and adults offenders in judicial concerns?

Age in this case is merely a time of transition in terms of the physique, intellect, and social nature and even on emotional basis but it still can not limit one from lacking the basics involved in competently handling personal judgments (Cairns & Robert, 1994). The life cycle that I have explained does not affect ones competence in ruling out poor actions thus when one offends or commits a crime it means he or she has chosen to be judged same as other offenders who were also incompetent to follow the law. One rationale that is brought into the picture to defend age factor is the essence of adolescence which influences the course of development.

Adolescents can motivate the youth to act in a negative way contrary to the laws of society and people argue that putting them in the adult system will not solve but harden their thinking (Endres & Karen, 2004). This aspect is worth thinking about but my perspective is that in the course of putting them in the adult system after they commit a crime the juveniles should also be put under rehabilitation service where the issue of adolescence will be looked at more keenly. With this into practice the transfer of young criminals to the adult system of administration will bring less worrying.

Adolescence should thus be taken into deep consideration as the developmental aspects installed in children are not altered and it is difficult trying to do so. Policies which are formulated in this case should not be poorly brought into the picture as their tough consequences will be clearly difficult to delete. Rehabilitation in this case is worthwhile but the adult system should also be used to pass judgment.

As stated earlier in a normal court procedure and according to the law, it is not the characteristics of the criminal that are looked into but it is the seriousness and the danger level of the offense which are scrutinized upon which judgment is passed. Age or the maturity of the offender in this sense is basically independent factors (Becker & Howard, 1960) and it is widely termed as being irrelevant. An argument that counters this is the understanding of the consequences that come with commitment of a specific crime which it is believed that juveniles understand little of the law as compared to adults. The interpretation and application of the laws of the land differs with maturity both in the intellectual capacity and emotional development but it does not exclude one from being judged in the same court system as everybody else who committed that same or even a less worse crime.

The punishment according to me should be equal and age in this case is a factor that is not worth considering. The children who are scientifically called juveniles from the ages of 12 to 17 have various forms of educational practices that enable them to fully understand the consequences of their actions whether at home, school or even the church. With this understanding it is out of order to say that the climate of a court will scare a child and prevent true testimony especially without knowledge of the motives of the attorneys and unscrupulous lawyers (Trahan & Dominique & 2009). Crime has its own repercussions of which an offender should be willing to face no matter the age and juveniles are bound to speak the truth during a hearing thus the issue of being harassed is out of the picture. I conclude by saying that it is right for a juvenile offender to be tried as adults especially when the natures of the crimes concur.