The laws of every country ensures justice is served. In order to ensure this is achieved, divisions are created to make sure punishment are befitting of crimes committed. One of such divisions are the laws created to protect the innocence of children and teenagers, who are considered as minors under the law. Compared to adults who are sent to a more gruesome and heavy duty correctional center called prison, minors enjoy a privilege that comes with age.
Instead of being confined in the same prison cell like the adults, they are sent to juvenile justice, a rehabilitation center meant for minors. This is to protect them from getting corrupted any further by adults who are more aware of crimes they have committed. The law believes teenagers are oblivious of crimes committed by them. But not just that, in some states juvenile justice records are sealed, expunged or probably erased - which is highly unlikely.
It all depends on the provisions provided by a country's constitution, which means the law that ensures juvenile justice might differ. Regardless of the difference in the enforcement of laws that protects juvenile justice in each state, it begs the question, is it necessary? I mean if kids are given the privilege of juvenile justice without getting tried like adult, does that make the crimes committed by them less relevant or gruesome? what happens to the victims of the crimes they committed?
Here is something everyone needs to know, the law might sound "just" but that doesn't mean it is fair. There are some laws that guides the conduct of citizens that makes people doubt the genuineness of the constitution. Example of such is the insanity plea, which means someone who is tested to be mentally unwell can get away with crimes committed, while the victims are left to suffer.
When it comes to the victims of crimes committed by minors, they can be seen as victims of loopholes that exist within the law. The law believes minors are ignorant or unaware of crimes committed, the level of trauma inflicted on the victim is not really fully analyzed to ensure the punishment is befitting of crimes committed. How bad will it be for the victims to watch the source of their trauma walk free on the street after a short while at rehabilitation center. Without getting the full punishment like they would have if they were adult. Not just that, to also see them thrive with a clean record like they never committed a crime, it is definitely not a fate I will wish upon anyone.
Should minors be trialed like adults? I'm sure if this was possible, the law enforcers would have considered it, probably some states do. This is why some states consistently adjust the age rage for a crime offender to be considered as a minor. This is to ensure that some teenagers don't use this as an excuse to commit crimes that they can't be trialed for.
But then, we still have teenagers who are victims of their circumstances, which means they are not aware of the consequences of crimes they are committing. Now imagine these teenagers being trialed the same way as adults who are fully aware of the difference between right and wrong, wouldn't that feel like the justice system is taking advantage of minors ignorance.
Here is something I feel like the law can make use of. It shouldn't be about age to determine the level of awareness of a crime committed but the law should make provisions for a system that analyse the level of awareness of a crime committed by a minor, then this will determine how they will be trialed.
This write-up was inspired by weekly featured content titled juvenile justice in hive learners community.
Cover Image - generated using chatgpt
