What are the pros and cons of trying juveniles as adults in court?

Juvenile court does not provide adequate justice

Question: What are the pros and cons of trying juveniles as adults in court?
Position1 of 2›: Juveniles should be tried as adults in court
Argument‹2 of 2: Juvenile court does not provide adequate justice

Trials taking place in juvenile court provide an opportunity for light sentencing and are more circumspect to a judge's whims than in the court of adults. This means that justice is more likely not to be adequately served.

The argument

Punishment in juvenile court is frequently doled out at a judge's discretion. There are much fewer restrictions and layers of legal accountability to ensure that a crime of specific severity is treated uniformly. This form of justice is inconsistent and especially inconsiderate to the victims, who are not afforded different types of trials based on age and maturity. Justice administered by only one person does not afford the same level of liability, and the lack of acknowledgment from a "jury of peers" means that the juvenile will not necessarily understand the impact that their crimes have had on society. It is not merely the severity of punishment based on age that changes between a minor and an adult's trial proceedings, but the entire type of trial. Reformative justice in the formative years makes sense, to a degree, but the lack of specific procedures when dealing with minors is not only harmful to their victims and communities, but to the juvenile's overall growth.

Premises

[P1]Juvenile court relies heavily on a single judge's discretion, with fewer restrictions and less accountability, producing inconsistent punishment that is inconsiderate to victims. [P2] Without a jury of peers, juveniles may not grasp the impact of their crimes, and the entirely different trial type harms victims, communities, and the juvenile's own growth. [C] Therefore, because juvenile court does not provide adequate justice, juveniles should be tried as adults in court.

Counter-arguments

The type of justice is different because the perpetrator is a minor, but that does not automatically make that consequence illegitimate. Certain financial punishments or jail prospects are irrational in regards to juveniles, and a misguided sense of accountability should not overrule logical precedent.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Discretion in juvenile court is deliberate rather than an oversight: the system is designed to fit disposition to the individual, and it operates within statutory ranges, subject to appellate review and in many jurisdictions to sentencing guidelines. "Fewer restrictions" is asserted without saying which restrictions are missing. The premise also makes consistency for victims the measure of adequate justice, which is the standard the sibling position disputes. [Rejecting P2] That juveniles will not grasp their crime's impact without a jury is speculation, and it points away from the conclusion — if comprehension is the problem, that is a reason to think adolescents differ from adults in exactly the way the juvenile system was built to address. The argument also never argues the step it needs: that adult court would do better. Adult proceedings bring adult sentences, permanent records and adult facilities, and the counter-argument's point that some of those consequences are simply inapt for a minor goes unanswered.

Proponents cited

Linda J. Collier
“So as far as I can see, the next step is clear: Children who knowingly engage in adult conduct and adult crimes should automatically be subject to adult rules and adult prison time.”
Tony Blair
“We should be tough on crime and tough on the underlying causes of crime. We should be prepared and eager to give people opportunity. But we are then entitled to ask that they take advantage of it, to grant rights and demand responsibilities. The public – contrary to conventional wisdom – does not ignore the social content of crime. But, rightly, they will only listen to people who show understanding of their own plight as potential victims.Second, we should support clearly and help the actual victims of crime. At present they are poorly treated and, on occasions, end up feeling they have become victims twice over.”