Sociology

Juvenile courts have been in existence for a long time. Since the introduction of juvenile court, juvenile offenders have been set free from the criminal courts set for the adults. The introduction of the Juvenile court was to deal with juvenile offenders at their youthful stage. Juvenile court does not consider crime but age of the offender.  The main aim of juvenile court is to offer guidance as well as treatment. It is not mandated for punishment since the offenders are at young stage. There has been hitting debates on trying juvenile the same way as adults. This was formulated in order to get tough with juveniles involved in crimes. The issue of doing away with juvenile courts has been on the horizon with even some states trying offenders at young age as adults. This paper examines the argument for abolishing juvenile court and also some arguments of not doing away with juvenile court (Erick, 2007).

There are several arguments why juvenile court should be abolished. It has been the perspective of many people to eliminate juvenile courts. Getting rid of juvenile court, will enable re-introduce punishment on juveniles. Juveniles rights are another key reason why juvenile court should be abolished. Juvenile court is mainly set to protect juveniles from the consequences of their deeds. It is unethical to shield someone who has done a crime. The purpose of juvenile court is shielding juveniles from encountering the consequences caused by them.  In order to be included in the constitution, juveniles should be introduced to criminal courts for adults. Therefore for justice to prevail and in order to exercise constitutional rights, juvenile court should be gotten rid off. Juveniles can only exercise their constitutional rights if they are introduced to trials in adult courts.

Juvenile violence has increased in the recent past. Since juvenile court shield youths from encountering consequences of their deeds, youths have been provided with a free environment on which they can participate in any crime. This is because they are assured protection. It is not the mandate of juvenile court to stop juvenile violence. This failure to prevent juvenile violence has created the necessity of getting rid of juvenile court. The future generation is mostly based on present generation. In order to prevent future predators, juveniles should be forced to carry the consequences of their own deeds without shielding them (Erick, 2007). This will ensure that future generation is not filled with predators.

There are some assumptions that doing away with juvenile court will make worsen everything instead of creating a solution. Children are considered to be in a stage towards maturity. This makes it hard to introduce them to the same standards as grown ups. This will be disadvantageous since they are on their way to maturity. Juvenile court is geared toward serving childrens interest. Juvenile court does not introduce punishment to youths but offer guidance and treatment. This might be essential for youths who are in the process of evaluating the wrong and the right (Erick, 2007). It might not be ethical to introduce juveniles to adult courts since they are not fully developed.

In conclusion, abolishing juvenile court may have pros and cons. This depends on the duties of juvenile. Although we have seen some of the consequences of not abolishing juvenile court, it is true that abolishing juvenile court will solve many issues. Having discussed the pros and cons of abolishing juvenile court, the benefits are more pronounced. Therefore, juvenile court should be abolished.