Introduction
Juvenile delinquency (JD) is one of the most acute problems of modern society. Adolescence is a critical age in the development of a child, the transition from childhood to adulthood. During the formation and development of the personality, this age is considered problematic. This is the time of adaptation of a teenager to the conditions of life in society when they still do not know how to navigate adults’ space. The harsh reality of modern life often leaves teenagers with no choice but to break the law for self-preservation or self-affirmation. The importance of paying attention to this situation is due to the fact that the younger generation is a natural reserve for the social development of any state that strives to achieve high development results.
What is Juvenile Delinquency?
Offenses committed by underage teenagers are a common phenomenon in the modern world. Ibrahim et al. (2020) determined that “some have associated it with the aspects of genes and chromosomes, gender, race, community deterioration, poverty, unemployment while others have associated it with childhood events such as psychological trauma, sexual abuse and other forms of physical abuse among others” (p. 347). In adolescence, offenses are committed mainly as part of a group, which explains the child’s need for intimate and personal communication, self-expression, and self-affirmation. Moreover, at the same time, it is possible to shift the committed act to the members of the group, thereby facilitating the punishment.
Reasons for Juvenile Delinquency
The main problem for adolescence is the discrepancy between objective conditions and opportunities for goals. These contradictions between adolescents’ spiritual and material needs, their parents, and the real possibilities of their satisfaction-all these processes and phenomena in relation to adolescents create at the macro level adverse conditions for their life and upbringing and thus can contribute to negative deviations. The main reasons for the emergence of deviant behavior among adolescents are the following:
– The influence of the family, where the child learns the pattern of interpersonal relationships, the acquisition of skills to plan their future life according to the norms of society (Rathinabalan & Naaraayan, 2017). Teenagers with deviant behavior come from families with low social status, difficult financial situations; they take an example from the antisocial behavior of their parents. Indulgence of immoral actions of children and indirect adverse effects are reflected in excessive satisfaction of needs and requests, release from family responsibilities, i.e., pampering. As a result, such spoiled teenagers develop selfishness, excessive claims, disrespect for other people, ignoring their interests, and irresponsibility.
– Non-direct influence of the teenager’s immediate environment. As an adult, a teenager copies peers’ behavior, who are sources of information for forming views and have a significant influence (Baysan Arabaci & Taş, 2017). The immediate environment gives the teenager a sense of inner security, an opportunity for self-realization. In the immediate environment, there may be not only socially well-off people but also asocial. As a rule, asocial subjects form a criminal group that demonstrates to its new member the techniques of psychological protection, trust, and mutual assistance.
– Rejection of the individual by others, where the child becomes an outcast of society. The team does not accept a teenager for some reason which makes them feels lonely, useless. He seeks in every way to get out of the state of insecurity, restlessness.
– Misinterpretation of information. Adolescence is the age of imitation and copying. Teenagers strive to be like the courageous heroes of cinema, literature, and authoritative peers. Ultimately, such imitation leads to addiction to bad habits, such as tobacco smoking, the use of narcotic substances, alcohol products, as well as to criminal and antisocial behavior.
These peculiarities are the most salient of juvenile delinquents. Thus, the reasons of crime among teenagers may be different, but the common thing between them is that, in many examples, adolescents commit crimes while out of control. It is essential to note that crimes are carried out not only by teenagers from dysfunctional families or orphans but also by minors who have well-off families (Anjaswarni et al., 2019). The social status of a young person in reality is not much different from that of a child. Teenagers only have a view of maturity, showed in the level of requirements that raise the place that they have not yet reached. Timely prevention of crimes committed by juveniles must be worked upon with the young people who show emotional instability, obstinacy, and aggression.
Dealing with JD
Prevention of JD is a framework of social, legal, pedagogical measures targeted at determining and excluding the reasons and situations that promote the antisocial actions of young people. Crime prevention can be either a separate area of activity of a state or public body, or a specific person, or act as a side result of its actions. Prevention of offenses is carried out in the forms of general and individual impact on the objects of prevention of offenses. Crime prevention can be either a separate area of activity of a state or public body, or a specific person, or act as a side result of its actions. Unified crime prevention among teenagers is a method of general effect on the objects of maintenance. Personal prevention is a form of unique influence on a specific person, which aims at limiting severe influences that may end up in the formation of an antisocial orientation and behavior, and for the social and pedagogical aftertreatment and prophylaxis of making offenses and actions which are harmful to others.
Prevention of offenses and crimes of minors includes early preventive measures targeted at forming the identity of a young person and timely prevention of their conversion to the way of a criminal, and the elimination of recidivism. Mwangangi (2019) notes that “family has been seen to be a critical element for child development and as a determining factor for children’s subsequent involvement in crime” (p. 52). To carry out the preventive measures, public, state, educational, cultural, and sports institutions are involved. A considerable role is played by the timely work carried out with the parents of the teenager, the involvement of psychologists, social educators.
Early prevention is a higher priority task assigned to the relevant authorities, as it allows identified and eliminate antisocial changes in the student’s personality that have not yet become stable, which means that in the future, there is a high probability that a crime will be prevented, it will be possible to avoid harm, causing loss and the use of strict coercive measures in relation to a minor.
An essential international legal document in the sphere of crime prevention and juvenile delinquency is the United Nations Guidelines on the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency of 1990. The standards of this paper identify aspects that can stop juvenile delinquency, including those at risk; steps to gain the importance for the role of different spheres of society in the prevention of crime among young people. The international community sees the implementation of a strategy for the prevention of juvenile delinquency as an important direction, which will affect the socialization and implementation of all young people under the age of eighteen. In addition, it is not necessary to resort to criminalization and punishment of these people when committing acts that do not cause substantial damage to others.
Juveniles Sentenced as Adults – Is It Fair?
In the United States, the justice system has a non-standard approach to juvenile justice. According to the current legislation, children from 11 to 13 years old and adolescents up to 18 years old are brought to trial on a general basis, and after reaching the age of 18, are automatically transferred to adult prisons. Contrary to expectations, the recidivism rate among young people is increasing after being transferred to adult prisons. Another problem is the lack of special programs to protect the interests of juveniles, including due to their vulnerability to adult criminals in prisons. Courts often fail to recognize that children cannot fully assess the consequences of their actions and make deliberate decisions. This paper aims to discuss the opposing viewpoints regarding whether it is reasonable to sentence juveniles as adults.
The juvenile justice system and the juvenile rehabilitation system need changes. Graber (2019) notes that the current practice is “unconstitutional and immoral” as it violates the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, according to which all US citizens have the right to due process and cannot be deprived of their life, liberty, or happiness (p. 3). The author implies that justice should be carried out to improve the situation for the better and protect all parties, not to punish offenders. It is a critical aspect in understanding why the trial and imprisonment of minors on a general basis is unfair.
Young people between the ages of 11 and 18 who are subjects of juvenile justice are physiologically and mentally different from adults. Graber (2019) emphasizes that “the brain does not have a fully developed frontal lobe until about age 21, which results in adolescents being unable to make decisions and analyze situations like adults” (p. 3). The scientist notes that adolescents make decisions more impulsively and are less inclined to analyze their actions than adults. It is imperative that judges and prosecutors consider this fact when deciding on a case and conducting interrogations. Rehabilitation of adolescents should also regard their differences and special needs.
Interrogation of minors deserves particular attention, as offenders may not understand their rights during trial and interrogation. Redlich et al. (2020) state that “under interrogation, while explicit statements of leniency are unacceptable, implicit statements are permitted” (p. 555). Scientists point to a situation where law enforcement officials interrogate defendants using not entirely legal interrogation techniques, such as condescension or putting subtext in the spoken words. Minors cannot fully assess prosecutors’ intentions and discern implications, so this practice should be categorically excluded in relation to juveniles.
Given the differences between adolescents and adults, most scholars are unanimous that juveniles should not be sentenced as adults and propose programs to help achieve justice. Lane (2018) states that effective responses will help reduce adolescent crime rates dramatically. The scientist suggests making sure that adolescents receive help and support, professional protection, and are treated without prejudice. Lane (2018) recommends tackling community-level problems, developing personalized approaches, building better data systems, and investing in children and adolescents serving their sentences.
Often, stereotypes influence how juveniles are perceived in court and during sentencing. Greene et al. (2017) concluded that there is a bias against children and adolescents who have committed serious crimes due to which they are perceived as superpredators. The scholars note that “we described a 13, 17, or 21-year-old offender who killed a stranger or abusive parent and asked if he should be taken to a criminal court and sentenced to LWOP; as support for the superpredator stereotype grew, so did support for these practices” (p. 841). These results indicate strong prejudice against juvenile offenders, especially when they commit serious crimes.
The most common arguments in defense of the current situation may include the need to create an example that injustice is always punished, especially when it comes to murder. On the one hand, advocates of the practice may argue that it typically affects adolescents aged 16-17, who make up most juvenile offenders. Appropriate punishment for adolescents can positively impact a sense of justice for victims. On the other hand, these arguments do not consider the physiological and mental age differences and the unique needs of children during imprisonment. Moreover, the transfer of children to adult prisons aggravates the crime situation, which indicates the inexpediency of such practice.
Violation of the 8th Amendment
The Supreme Court’s decision to limit the severity of sentences for juveniles convicted of murder was a revolutionary step for the US justice system. This decision was based on the latest proven facts about the physical and mental differences between children and adults and their potential for rehabilitation. The new approach should justify itself since, according to scientists, persons convicted of murder in adolescence demonstrate a low level of recidivism and an even lower level of re-conviction for any other violent incident (DiCataldo et al., 2017). The study analyzed a period of 7.8 years, which is long enough to conclude a lower propensity for delinquency among adolescents who have been released from prison compared with adult offenders. Scientists also believe that people who commit crimes in adolescence better adapt to society after being released.
The decision to limit the severity of punishment uses cases of Roper v. Simmons (2005), Graham v. Florida (2010), Miller v. Alabama (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016). In particular, Miller v. Alabama (2012) prescribes that several factors should be considered when sentencing. These are “a) the age of the minor and its characteristics, including immaturity, irascibility and inability to assess the consequences; b) family and home environment, from which young people are less able to escape than adults; c) the circumstances of the offense, including the role of the minor and the degree of peer pressure” (DiCataldo et al., 2017, p. 90). The critical factors also include “d) the incompetence of young people due to immaturity, which could lead to inconvenience in dealing with the police or participating in criminal proceedings; and e) youth potential for rehabilitation” (DiCataldo et al., 2017, p. 90). Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision considers physical and mental development, as well as socio-economic factors to improve the system of juvenile justice.
Notably, the review of the juvenile justice system by the Supreme Court began with Roper v. Simmons (2005), which prohibits the death penalty for offenders before the age of majority. Further, Miller v. Alabama (2012) formulated a prohibition on sentencing with a mandatory “juvenile life without parole” (JLWOP) approach for a murder committed by minors. Finally, Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) implies that the decision to ban mandatory JLWOP should be applied retroactively to all people who have homicide as juveniles. Despite such significant indulgences, the United States is still the only country in the world to use JLWOP for juvenile crimes.
Analysis of Roper v. Simmons’ (2005) findings led lawmakers to understand that adolescents’ immaturity allows them to be classified as a class and suggests that they are less guilty of a crime than adults. In addition, in this case, the findings include the concept of adolescents’ greater propensity for rehabilitation and “positive effects of growing up” (DiCataldo et al., 2017, p. 89). The analysis of the results in this case also led to the fact that minors were no longer considered among the most severe offenders. Nowadays, court members are increasingly referring to the peculiarities of neurobiological development supporting the decision to cancel the mandatory JLWOP. Moreover, the JLWOP for Minors is seen as a violation of the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
Racial and Ethnic Discrimination
Despite such positive shifts concerning the juvenile justice system in general, here, as in many other areas of the US social life, scientists often observe the effects of racial and ethnic discrimination and inequality. Scientists analyzed the influence of such aspects as ethnicity and race on the severity of punishment in courts. They concluded that not only adults but also adolescents are subject to associated adverse effects (Lehmann et al., 2017). In particular, an analysis of 913 defendants convicted in Florida showed that “reveals that Black transferred juveniles are more likely to be sentenced to jail or prison and are given longer prison sentences than Whites, but Hispanic youth are only penalized in the sentence to jail” (Lehmann et al., 2017, p. 99). The study results also showed that Black males were sentenced to harsh punishment in comparison with other groups, irrespective of age. The study demonstrated that the aspects of race and ethnicity were conditioned by violence, sex, and a drug offense.
Thus, different viewpoints regarding whether it is reasonable to sentence juveniles as adults were discussed. This practice allows implementing justice in the case of serious crimes committed by adolescents and demonstrating to society that such actions as murder are fully punishable by law, regardless of the offender’s age. However, this approach is not entirely reasonable and practical since it does not regard the mental and moral development of children and adolescents. The practice of court and interrogation does not consider that juveniles cannot fully understand the essence of the process and their rights. Therefore, the existing stereotypes and increased severity in relation to crimes committed by children exacerbate the situation.
Conclusion
Juvenile delinquency is a global problem of our time, the solution of which is important for the entire world community. This is influenced by the decisive role of the younger generation in ensuring the viability of society and its development. An increase in juvenile delinquency characterizes even the most democratic and economically developed States. This suggests that it is impossible to solve the problem of juvenile delinquency using only national means. It is necessary to unite the international community’s efforts as a whole, resulting from which a system of standards, norms, and principles of international law has emerged, which aims to solve this problem.
Preventive work with adolescents is a long and painstaking work that allows solving the child’s immediate problem and prevents them from committing unseemly acts in the future. Teenagers mostly commit crimes in a group because, due to their age, they need to communicate with their peers. When they get into a criminal group, they get involved in harmful activities, which they would hardly dare to do alone. Groups of juvenile delinquents do not arise from scratch. Their education is facilitated by many interrelated conditions and causes, such as the shortcomings of family, school, and social education. The prerequisites for their occurrence are the personal characteristics of adolescents and their interaction with the social microenvironment.
References
Anjaswarni, T., Nursalam, N., Widati, S., & Yusuf, A. (2019). Analysis of the Risk Factors Related to the Occurrence of Juvenile Delinquency Behavior. Jurnal Ners, 14(2).
Baysan Arabaci, L., & Taş, G. (2017). Dragging Factors in Juvenile Delinquency, Mental Health Problems, and Nursing Care. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing, 8(2).
DiCataldo, F., Linder, C., Neddenriep, J., Christensen, M., Domas, S., & Kinscherf, R. (2017). The Recidivism of juveniles convicted of homicide and released as adults. Today’s Children are Tomorrow’s Parents, 45-46, 88-101.
Graber, R. L. (2019). Is it acceptable for juveniles to be tried as adults? Criminal Justice Capstone Research Papers, 1, 1-26.
Greene, E., Duke, L., & Woody, W. D. (2017). Stereotypes influence beliefs about the transfer and sentencing of juvenile offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(9), 841-858.
Ibrahim, R. B., Nasirudeen, I. A., & Isiaka, M. (2020). Juvenile Delinquency: The Role of Bystanders and Enablers. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 10(6), 857-865.
Lane, J. (2018). Addressing juvenile crime: what have we learned, and how should we proceed? Criminology & Public Policy, 17(2), 283-307.
Lehmann, P. S., Chiricos, T., & Bales, W. D. (2017). Sentencing transferred juveniles in the adult criminal court: The direct and interactive effects of race and ethnicity. Youth violence and juvenile justice, 15(2), 172-190.
Mwangangi, R. K. (2019). The role of family in dealing with juvenile delinquency. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7(3), 52-63.
Rathinabalan, I., & Naaraayan, S. A. (2017). Effect of family factors on juvenile delinquency. International Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics, 4(6), 2079-2082.
Redlich, A. D., Shteynberg, R. V., & Nirider, L. H. (2020). Pragmatic implication in the interrogation room: A comparison of juveniles and adults. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16(4), 555-564.