Troubled Teens Resources

When does teen crisis intervention end and adult punishment begin? There is ongoing debate within the halls of juvenile justice as to appropriate sentencing for violent teen offenders. There is growing concern that as teen violence is perpetuated by adolescents at younger and younger ages, that sentencing needs to be adjusted to reflect the seriousness of their crimes.

The same debate seems to be ongoing in Europe as well. Their various systems of juvenile justice may differ from America’s but they have been as seriously impacted by teen drug abuse, binge drinking and teen crime as we have. They also seem to have the same factions contending for the final word on the matter.

One side contends that it is unjust to force a teen offender into an adult system that offers little in the way of education or rehab.

Allowing defendants under 21 to be tried and sentenced according to juvenile law lowers the chances of repeat offenders by providing judges with more leeway in issuing appropriate sentences, he said.

“In general law you have fines, probation and jail sentences,” Sonnen said. “In juvenile law there is a much wider palette of options.”

Opponents feel that truly violent teens need punishment, not coddling.

“This week, Beate Merk, Bavaria’s justice minister and a member of the conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) renewed criticism that cases such as the juvenile prison torture and murder showed that young offenders were also guilty of serious crimes which weren’t sufficiently punished with a ten-year prison sentence.

Offenders between 18 and 20 who are convicted according to juvenile law should thus get a tougher maximum sentence, Merk said.”

(source)

One can’t help but side with those who wish to meet extreme violence with adult cures. Especially where a long juvenile record indicates the juvenile has zero respect for the law. When young teens witness their peers getting light punishment for serious offenses, it only perpetuates the problem.