Juvenile Justice

Rita Kramer's "Juvenile Justice Is Delinquent," a very well written argument, explains how juvenile delinquents have changed, and are getting away now with almost everything they do without a severe punishment. Kramer writes clearly to make the reader understand her essay. Kramer writes that the Juvenile system is very similar to New York's Family Court. The New York Family Court was originally sought to protect children who were getting in trouble with the law that still considered them infants, because of their young age. What Kramer is saying is that a teenager that is a criminal would not be tried or treated as an adult because of the teenagers young age. Rita states that the present juvenile court system actually encourages the young

delinquent to continue criminal behavior by showing them that they can get away with a crime. The juvenile court system is very similar to the New York Family Court system which was made to protect children who are usually under the age of 18 who kept on running into trouble with law. It was designed to function as helping parents of juveniles.

By protecting those kids who were younger from the age of 18 juveniles always used the system as a game and said, "I ain't sixteen yet," they cannot

do anything to me. If the government then protects them and the juveniles get no punishment, that means that the government is giving them a second chance repeating crimes. In the 1950's juvenile delinquents who were caught doing something illegal were not treated like an adult, because that delinquent was "not criminally responsible... by reason of infancy." A hearing though would be held but in private to protect the child's identity. But in the 1960's the juvenile court system changed and it gave juveniles who were called

"respondents" instead criminals, the rights to have a lawyer represent them. On top of that it also gives protection like the criminal court system gives adults who are responsible to serious penalties if guilty. In paragraph six of Rita's essay she says that the current juvenile

system has made it the defendant's lawyers job to protect the young client from any possibility of rehabilitation. That means that the courts now are also protecting rights of juveniles, which makes it even more impossible for prosecuters to convict the defendant. This then offers the child to get away with no punishment and now thinks that he/she have the right to keep on acting in a misbehaving or unlawful way which had brought him or her into juvenile court, knowing that there was no big consequence that would happen to them. If there was any consequences it would be something small like being put in a

facility that contains a TV, basketball courts, probably better food and medical service than what was provided at home. If the courts send juveniles to facilities like these, juveniles would keep doing crimes to stay in these facilities. If juveniles have a better life at the facilities than what they have at home, who wouldn't want to go to these facilities.That is where the court is wrong because the court bases the judgment on the persons age not on their crimes, and that does not help the juvenile to be disciplined. In the early 70's the majority