Children today represent a dichotomy for many people, one that instills both hope and fear, as is indicated in the following statement by Michael P. Brown:
Children have been described as our future, our greatest resource, and our hope for a better tomorrow. For many Americans, though, children invoke fear. They represent violence, a segment of society lacking in self control and devoid of ethics and morals, and the failure of the family to instill traditional values: chief among them being the value of human life and respect for others (Brown).
Such views have led to calls for a change in the criminal justice system in order to increase the punishment possible for certain young offenders, especially those involved in violence. An analysis of the arguments on both sides is in order and shows that this trend is counterproductive.
The American juvenile justice system was designed a century ago to reform kids found guilty of minor crimes, but more and more, the system has to cope with the increase in violent crimes committed by younger people. The response on the part of lawmakers has been largely to siphon the worst of these young people out of the juvenile system by lowering the age at which juveniles charged with serious crimes can be tried in adult courts, a trend that seems to increase around election time. The approach follows the view of Gil Garcetti, the District Attorney of Los Angeles, who states,
We need to throw out our entire juvenile justice system . . . We should replace it with one that both protects society from violent juvenile criminals and efficiently rehabilitates youths who can be saved and can differentiate between the two (Lacayo 60).
Over the past six years, there has been a significant increase in juvenile crime in the most serious categories, including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Homicide arrests of young people ages 10 through 14 rose from 194 in 1988 to 301 ...