Brady 1

Hannah Brady

Professor Connie Douglas

UWRT 1102

21 March 2017

Uncovering the Different Aspects of Juvenile Justices

To have a successful argument, one must not have just the facts that support their

argument, but also the voices that surround their specified topic. These voices, which come in

many different forms, allow the audience of the argument to not only read and understand the

words of the argument but also the intent and tone. A writer's voice also gives us a glimpse into

their biases and perspective.

In juvenile justice reform, the three voices that stand out above the rest are the judicial

system, the advocates, and the scientists. The judicial system, which can be narrowed to

specifically the juvenile court and detention centers, oversee what they believe is a fair and

balanced system, especially with the funding that they are given. The advocates; however,

observes and condones different aspects of the system, advocating for a change to fix the flaws

of the broken system. The scientists, more specifically psychologists, observe the traits of these

offenders and offer different tactics for both sides on dealing with juvenile delinquency.

Throughout this essay, readers with be taken through these voices and viewpoints to gain a better

understanding of juvenile justice reform and what actions need to be taken to enhance the lives

of these delinquencies.

The voice of the judicial system has been around since the beginning of the juvenile court

system. In the beginning, the justice system tried to create a system that was focused on

rehabilitation, yet now their intentions and actions have become unclear. There are two separate
 Brady 2

voices that are included in this major voice, the voice of the detention centers and that of the

court systems.

On the side of the detention centers, one major issue that is clearly having an impact on

the system, is the lack of funding given by the states to juvenile detention centers (Primrose 3).

Due to the lack of funding by the states, the judicial system can only afford so many additional

amenities besides room, board and food. One of the major amenities that they generally choose

not to emphasize is education (Sanders 8). The lack of emphasis on education raises many

problems and questions for these children. Since most states allow students to drop out of high

school at the age of sixteen, the same law applies to juvenile offenders and most, not realizing

the importance of education, finish their schooling at age sixteen with no degree. This raises the

question on whether there should be forced schooling for delinquents, which the judicial system

recounts that there is not sufficient funding to increase awareness of the importance of education.

The lack of funding alone calls into question the intentions of the judicial system.

On the other side of this voice, focusing on the actual court proceedings, there have been

ethical incidences that have occurred over the past few years that have called into question the

legitimacy of the system. The major issue has been that of the cash-for-kids scandal, where

judges have sold off children to private rehabilitation centers, receiving a kickback for each child

they send to these centers (Primrose 1). These kickbacks have called into question the legitimacy

of the system and whether their many focus has shifted from helping these children to having

them as part of a monetary benefit.

The next voice, the voice of the advocates, is the main opposition for the judicial system,

asking for a complete remodel of the system focusing specifically on rehabilitation and

education. A common goal that both the judicial system and the advocates is the idea of
 Brady 3

expanding funding to these detention centers. The question becomes where to allocate these

funds. This first major issue that they cover is the topic of the lack of educational funding given

to detention centers to help teach these delinquents and help them transition back into society

(Sander 15). By focusing on education, the advocates hope that the rate of return for juvenile

offenders would decrease. The next issue that advocates focus on is this issue of what exactly is

considered a minor and should children at a certain age be able to be tried as adults for the

severity of their crime. Due to states having control of specifics dealing with their court systems,

this is an area of tension between states and advocates. Currently, there are only two different

states that have the age of adulthood below eighteen, North Carolina and New York (Lyon 2).

There have been many times where the voices of the judicial system and that of the

advocates have met in court to decide the fairness of laws that have been put into place by states.

The three major cases that reached the Supreme Court have been decided in favor of the

advocates. The first major case is Graham v. Florida, which ruled that minors could not be

sentenced to life in prison for non-homicidal cases. Miller v. Alabama dealt specifically with if

minors could be given the sentence of life without parole in homicide cases, which was found

unconstitutional under the eighth amendment. The final case, Rogers v. Simmons, found that

sentencing minors to the death penalty is considered unconstitutional (Scott 3). All three cases

have changed the way the judicial system has had approach sentencing minors and are major

victories for the advocates.

The final voice that surrounds the topic of juvenile justice reform is that of the

psychologist, who is often the basis for most of the advocates arguments, despite their nonbiased

approach to their research. The basis of their research is surrounded mostly around the idea of the

cognitive levels of minors and how that affects their decision-making and their impulsivity. Their
 Brady 4

research has been beneficial to validating the voice of the advocate due to their findings.

Research shows that the brain is not fully developed until the age of twenty-five, meaning that

decision making is not fully developed and can lead to impulsive decisions (Shen 28). Another

study shows that not only is the prefrontal cortex not fully developed into the mid-twenties, but

that minors also do not understand the full extent of their actions, which can also lead to

impulsive decision making. Advocates use this research in support of their case of raising the

legal age at which minors can be tried as adults as well as emphasizing the importance of

rehabilitation and education.

Each voice of an argument carries with it its own biases and believes. In order to

successfully understand and appreciate all sides, it is imperative to research and learn what

makes each one of them tick. In relation to juvenile justice, it is clear to see that that the

objectives of all the voices may be the same in their desire to rehabilitate delinquents; however,

their focuses are different. The court system is tied by financial constraints whereas the advocate

is looking out for the collective group and the psychologist is interested more in the individuals

response.
 Brady 5

Works Cited

Elizabeth S. Scott, Miller v. Alabama and the (Past and) Future of Juvenile Crime Regulation, 31 Law &

Ineq. 535, 558 (2013)

Francis X. Shen, Legislating Neuroscience: The Case of Juvenile Justice, 49 Loy. LA. L. Rev. 985, 999

(2013)

Lyons, Christina L. "Should Teens Who Murder Be Treated as Adults." CQ Researcher 11 Sept. 2015:

745-68. Web. 9 Feb. 2017.

Sander, Janay B, Jill D. Sharkey, Amber N. Groomes, Lauren Krumholz, Kimberly Walker, and Julie Y.

Hsu. "Social Justice and Juvenile Offenders: Examples of Fairness, Respect, and Access in

Education Settings." Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation. 21.4 (2011): 309-

337. Print.

Sarah L. Primrose, When Canaries Won't Sing: The Failure of the Attorney Self-Reporting System in the

"Cash-for-Kids" Scheme, 36 J. Legal Prof. 139, 141 (2011)