Pros and Cons of the Juvenile Justice System

Under most state laws, juvenile offenders do not commit "crimes", they commit delinquent acts, and some of these acts would constitute as crimes if committed by an adult. The trial phase of a juvenile case is called an adjudication hearing. This is when the judge hears the evidence and makes a determination whether the child is delinquent or not. The court may then take whatever action it deems necessary to be in the child's best interest. The purpose of the juvenile court is to rehabilitate, not to punish. However, the clash point in this debate is whether juveniles are mature enough to handle the consequences of their actions and as well be punished more severely in adult courts, if they commit more serious crimes. One of the basic problems and source of this debate is determining where to draw the line.
A crime is still considered a crime, no matter who commits it. That is the attitude of many in this country that leads to the question of whether or not the whole juvenile system should be discarded and allow the judicial system of criminal courts to try both children and adults under the same law, with the same rules. Here are a few points that will help elaborate on why eradicating the juvenile system might be considered a bad idea. On most occasions, we'll find that the kids who have committed a crime are as young as 9 and 10. It is an understood and even proven in facts that a child at an age like this, dose not have the mental ability like that of an adult, to plan and execute any crime and moreover to understand the consequences of his/her actions. So all in all, this is due to them yet to develop the thought processes of an adult and that demands us to treat them differently.
It’s only after their adolescent years are over that these children become mature and begin to understand important concepts such as