Based on the supposition that juveniles and grown-ups should have separate treatments, a separate system of justice for juveniles runs in America. More than 2.7 million detainees were made of people who are under the age of eighteen back in 1994. The huge majority of these detainees were for crimes that were of non-violence. Approximately five percent were for status crimes such as malingering, running away, or violation of curfew. Therefore, this paper supports the new age boundaries that were set for the court systems of the juvenile by giving relevant defensive points to this move.
The juvenile court jurisdiction comprises of three youthful categories. These include; the delinquents – youths who engage in actions that are considered criminal for a person who is a mature, together with felonies and delinquency. Status offenders –youths who engage in actions that would never be regarded as criminal in a mature person, for instance violating curfews, malingering and running away from their homes. Children who are dependent and abandoned – these are youths who are disadvantaged and require assistance and supervision (Cole & smith, 2008).
Almost 75 percent of cases passed on to juvenile courts are cases of criminal behavior nationally (approximately 1.5 million per year). In addition, nearly 60 percent of lawsuits like these engross property offenses. A noteworthy number of lawsuits heard in the courts that deal with juvenile crimes are status crimes. According to Cole and smith (2008), the most essential obvious decisive factor that separates the court system that tries the juveniles from the court that tries the criminal adults is the age factor. The laws of the state differ in the least or utmost age boundaries. Seven years under common decree is the minimum age that a person can be held accountable for any criminal conducts. When a person is considered an adult, he is believed to be falling at the maximum age category and is not at any point subjected to be tried at the juvenile court.