This paper examines the fundamental differences between the juvenile justice system and the adult criminal justice system in the United States. It traces the origins of juvenile courts in the early twentieth century, their philosophical emphasis on rehabilitation and the "best interest of the child," and the constitutional reforms introduced by the Supreme Court beginning in the 1960s. The paper also discusses the 1980s shift toward harsher treatment of juvenile offenders, the influence of the victims' rights movement, and the gradual cross-pollination of rehabilitative ideals into the adult justice system. Together, these developments illustrate how American society's understanding of adolescence and criminal responsibility has evolved over time.
The paper effectively uses compare-and-contrast analysis throughout, pairing specific features of the juvenile system (e.g., "delinquent" vs. "guilty," preventative detention, in loco parentis) against their adult counterparts. This technique keeps the argument focused and makes abstract legal distinctions concrete and accessible for readers.
The paper opens with a conceptual contrast between the two justice systems, establishing the core philosophical difference (rehabilitation vs. retribution). It then moves historically, covering the origins of juvenile courts, the Supreme Court's constitutional interventions in the 1960s, Congressional action in 1974, and finally the punitive shift of the 1980s. The conclusion synthesizes these threads by noting convergence between the two systems over time. The two cited sources — a U.S. Department of Justice report and a PBS Frontline resource — are used consistently throughout to anchor claims.
The juvenile justice system in America reflects a fundamentally different conception of the adolescent mentality versus the adult mentality. "Rehabilitation and treatment, in addition to community protection, are considered to be primary and viable goals" of the juvenile justice system, in contrast to the adult system where "rehabilitation is not considered a primary goal…which operates under the assumption that criminal sanctions should be proportional to the offense" rather than to the nature and character of the offender (Juvenile vs. Adult Justice, 2013, Frontline). The juvenile justice system in many ways views itself as treating the child offender just as much as it is dealing with crime. That is why "the juvenile justice system follows a psychological casework approach, taking into account a detailed assessment of the youth's history in order to meet his or her specific needs," while adults are merely tried based upon their guilt or innocence (Juvenile vs. Adult Justice, 2013, Frontline). Juveniles are also found "delinquent" or "not delinquent," in contrast to adults who are found "guilty" or "not guilty."
With juveniles, the court is portrayed as functioning in loco parentis — assuming a paternalistic, guiding role for the child. This means that juveniles lack many of the protections adults have within the legal system, including basic constitutional liberties. "Law enforcement has the option of preventative detention — detaining a youth for his own protection or the community's protection" — and juveniles do not have a right to a jury trial in all states (Juvenile vs. Adult Justice, 2013, Frontline). Adults, in contrast, have the right to be released on bail or bond, or a compelling reason must be given relative to their danger to the community if they are not released. Adults also have an unqualified right to a jury trial.
Juvenile courts are a relatively recent development in the United States, beginning in the early twentieth century. These courts were relatively informal entities designed to focus on the "best interest of the child" rather than retributive justice. Children were meant to be "reformed" through probation, training school, and detention with other juveniles rather than punished. However, this loose and somewhat arbitrary method of justice could also lead to erratic enforcement of laws.
In a series of decisions beginning in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court required that juvenile courts become more formal — more like criminal courts (Bilchik, 1999, p. 3). These rulings also gave juveniles certain rights they had not previously enjoyed, such as the right to be protected against self-incrimination and to know the charges against them (Bilchik, 1999, p. 3). Congress further extended rights to juveniles through the Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, including the "deinstitutionalization of status offenders" — juveniles convicted of acts that would not be crimes if committed by adults — and the requirement that juveniles be separated from the adult prison population (Bilchik, 1999, p. 4).
The 1980s saw a shift back toward a less lenient attitude regarding juveniles. Many states made it easier for certain types of offenders to be transferred to adult courts. The victims' rights movement demanded greater awareness about the rights of crime victims, stressing that it was unfair for victims to receive no meaningful justice simply because their offender happened to be a juvenile.
While juvenile courts have become increasingly influenced by concepts of justice that once applied only to adults, it is equally noteworthy that concepts of rehabilitation and restorative justice — in which the offender makes amends to the community he or she harmed — once exclusive to the juvenile justice system have now become more influential within the adult justice system as well. A concept of justice that is not purely retributive and attempts to improve the criminal and bring him or her back into society through reform underlines many components of adult justice today as well.
Juvenile vs. adult justice. (2013). Frontline. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/stats/juvvsadult.html
You’re 92% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.