Juvenile Court Judge (Essay Sample)

Juvenile Court Judge Introduction Juvenile justice may be one of the toughest courts to sit on throughout the legal system. A judge is adjudicating cases over a group of people for the most part is very vulnerable physically and emotionally, they can easily be influenced to commit crimes for a variety of reasons, and they often do not have any money to pay for the financial penalties that come with committing those crimes. In an interview with a Westworld reporter, Judge Capizzi, who is also president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, laid out the tough environment that juvenile judges face every day. He described the condition the youth are in when they enter his or any juvenile courtroom. He said they are often traumatized by the crimes they witness, done against relatives and friends. Also, he claimed that the transient nature of the people in their lives often lead these youth to become drug addicts and other less than desirable lifestyles (Roberts, 2018). It is this type of environment and atmosphere that this paper will answer the question what type of judge would I be in the juvenile justice system? The many issues facing a juvenile judge are challenging and are prone to stretch anyone giving serious thought to this question. Should one be lenient or harsh The juvenile justice system was born out of need. To protect young offenders from the seriousness of adult prisons, there were many alternatives created to help juveniles pay for their crimes against society. These alternatives ranged from special institutions designed to house younger offenders to a foster care program. Different agencies were also created to help represent and protect the juveniles’ interests and make specific recommendations to the different adult judges. This carried on even after the juvenile court was established in America in 1899 (Caldwell, 1961). The fight to provide justice for young offenders has been a long one, and it is justice that needs to be done. The book of Micah in the Old Testament talks about how important justice is, but justice cannot be done alone. That book reminds us that justice needs to be accompanied by mercy if it is t be effective and help resolve the many issues that led to an offender committing a crime (Micah, 1611). In helping to stem the tide of juvenile crime it is not possible to be either lenient or harsh. Neither attitude represents justice that well and both can easily overlook issues that would allow the offender to recommit crimes once they are released from their newly imposed sentencing. One would have to look for the right sentence to fit the crime committed while taking into account the mitigating factors that surrounded the juvenile’s decision making before the crime was committed. Then one would have to look to see if mercy was applicable and would help brig the offender to change their ways and seek to become a constructively contributing citizen to society. Can one be harsher on some criminal offenses than others The state of crimes committed by juveniles can rarely be differentiated from adult crimes. There are many young offenders who commit depraved acts so bad that the juvenile court system is not equipped to handle the aftermath and bring justice to the victims of the crime. The powers that be sought to justify the transfer of juveniles to adult courts by creating the hypothesis that there existed in certain segments of society a super juvenile offender (Gulstad, 2016). With the original idea of creating the juvenile court in the first place was to spare young offenders the harsh penalties that came with being tried in adult courts, it does not seem to make much sense to transfer modern juvenile offenders back to adult courts to face those same harsh punishments. The other purpose of the juvenile court system, upon its creation, was to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. It was hoped that this different focus would help stop juveniles from continuing their criminal activities once they became adults (Gulstad, 2016). With the purpose of the juvenile courts in mind and the purpose to bring justice to both the victim(s) and the offender, it is almost impossible to treat some crimes harsher than others. Crimes are crimes and the punishment should fit the crime committed. This attitude may be reflective of a harsher treatment for certain crimes, but the comparison falls short when looking at the nature of the crimes committed. One cannot be expected to provide the same sentence when the nature of the crimes differ in large ways. The punishment for theft, even armed robbery, should not be as severe as sexual assault crimes or murder. In reverse, one should not be expected to hand out lighter sentences to those who commit murder. The rationale would be that it would not be fair to the offender to get a harsh penalty when other offenders receive lighter sentences for other serious crimes. One would have to be take into account the nature of the crime, the attitude behind the decision to commit the crime, whether it was premeditated or not and other factors that would cast light on which sentence would best ft the crime committed. Cries have to be taken on their individual merits and the appropriate sentence must be handed down if justice is going to be achieved. The fact that there is no hope for rehabilitation or redemption of the offender should not play a role in handing down the just sentence for the crime committed. Does the age of the offender make a difference The origin and source of common law has held to the innocence of the child. It had been determined by the doctrines declared by this common law that a child under the age of 7 was incapable of formulating criminal though or carrying out crimes. Also, it was held that the child between the ages of 7 and 14 was still incapable of committing a criminal act yet understood the basic nature of those activities. Then after the age of 14, he juvenile became responsible for their actions. It was on this premise that the juvenile court system felt that children under a given age cannot and should not be held liable for any criminal activity (Caldwell, 1961). While that presumption has been followed for the most part, history has shown that children under a certain age do think of committing criminal acts and have committed criminal acts. Experts have also shown that children as young as the age of 5 or 6 do understand the difference between right and wrong, the criteria for adjudicating court cases (Kanter, 2016). With this knowledge and understanding that compels one to think that the age of the juvenile offender should not influence the punishment for crimes they commit. There has to be one just sentence that will bring justice to the victim and not over punish the offender. Having unfair sentences due to age can upset the delicate balance of the purpose of the juvenile court system. Once word got out that different offenders were given different sentences for the same crime, it is possible that more offenders would continue their criminal activity as they see no fairness or justice to the system they were punished by. With rehabilitation as a goal of the juvenile court system, every it of care must be given to make sure the laws are fair, just and that no ...