Please don't use .edu, .com, .org, .net websites. Use academic or government websites only. Don't use I think or I believe. Use in text citations and list of references. 1 to 1 2/2 pages.
Let’s analyze two real case studies on violent crimes perpetrated by juvenile gang members. The first case is about two juveniles, Calvin Pearson and Daniel Russell, who were processed in an adult court.
Marie Oliver, a 90-year-old widow, lived in Northern Sacramento. One evening, she was listening the radio when Calvin and Daniel, both 16 years old, entered her home and struck her repeatedly to death. They dragged her body into the hallway, stole $200 and her wedding ring, and left. The police arrested them within a couple of hours after the crime. Considering the serious nature of the offense committed, the police presented these juveniles before an adult court. The duo were convicted for Marie Oliver’s murder and robbery and sentenced to prison. A few residents and community advocates opposed this judgment, stating that at-risk youth should be entitled to city-operated programs.
Let’s first determine a probable reason for such juvenile crimes and offenses and ascertain whether the state, the police, and the community are responsible for the occurrence of such juvenile delinquency.
Many juveniles may not understand the consequences of committing drastic crimes. Probably, a breakdown of families leads such juveniles to join gangs to seek what they believe to be protection or safety.
In this case, Calvin and Daniel were prosecuted as adults as per Proposition 21, the get tough on crime initiative approved by voters in 2000.
On the one hand, if juveniles commit a gruesome crime such as murder, they surely have knowledge of the crime committed. Therefore, they should be as accountable as adult offenders and should be processed in adult courts. On the other hand, juveniles do not possess an adult’s capacity to judge. Therefore, allowing them to be tried as adults is unfair. Juvenile offenders should be given a chance to rehabilitate. In addition, the police and community need to work together to resolve the bigger issue of how juvenile crimes are initiated and how they succeed.
The second case highlights the circumstances under which juvenile cases are transferred to adult courts.
On November 13, 2005, late after midnight, two teenagers were sitting in a car outside the Regency Club Apartments in Jackson. Suddenly, two juveniles, Dashaun Randolph and Joshua Gonzalez, and an adult, Eric Adair, shot at them.
The police arrested the three perpetrators, before sunrise, in another town. All three were presented before an adult court because of the severity of the crime committed. They were all indicted and charged with committing gang violence.
Let’s determine why this case was treated in an adult court system. This case came under the jurisdiction of adult justice because gang initiation was determined as the true nature of the crime. In other words, the use of firearms prompted the justice system to process Dashaun and Joshua also in the adult jurisdiction. In addition, their offense was more serious than those committed by similar youth processed in juvenile courts.
However, sending a convicted juvenile into an adult court system may be entirely counterproductive. Juveniles incarcerated in adult institutions are at a greater risk of assaults.
If this case had been processed in a juvenile justice court, Dashaun and Joshua would have been sent to a juvenile detention system. They would have received education and training, counseling, drug treatment, and other assistance to prevent them from committing such violent acts in the future.
From a social perspective, juveniles join gangs for reputation and protection and to feel wanted, to have friends, and to make money. This can be prevented by providing ample recreation opportunities, jobs, and internships to the juveniles. Another alternative is to develop prevention and early intervention programs geared toward at-risk youth.
The final ruling in this case indicates that criminal court handling is required for some serious, older, and violent juvenile offenders. However, some believe that society and the numerous juvenile offenders may be less well off because of handling juvenile offenders as adults.
With reference to this week’s problem statement, utilize the resources provided to you along with your own research, and post answers to the following discussion questions:
- “Juveniles are developmentally different from adults and more responsive to rehabilitation efforts.” Do you agree with this statement? If yes, how are juveniles developmentally different from adults? Why are they more responsive to rehabilitation efforts?
- What could be the possible implications of transferring a juvenile for trial from juvenile to adult jurisdictions and the adult courts? Support your answers with your research and examples.
- Often, prosecutors will seek to have a juvenile’s case transferred to adult court, due to the seriousness of the crime. What should be the specific criteria that judges take into consideration when deciding whether to grant a waiver request?