"Rethinking Juvenile Justice"- Non Fiction Response

The main idea of “Rethinking Juvenile Justice” by John Schwarts is that juveniles shouldn’t be charged as adults when crime is committed. In this article, the author uses juvenile cases as examples of this issue. For example, 17 year old James Stewart was drunk driving, and slammed into another vehicle, killing the driver. When arrested they charged James as an adult, moving him to the county jail. As a result of being alone and isolated, James took his own life. According to the article “in the late 1980’s and 90’s nearly half the states have enacted laws that keep more young offenders in the juvenile justice system, divert them from being automatically tried as adults, or prevent them from being placed in adult jails and prison”. This shows how the issue on juveniles being treated as adults has taken place in many states and that they should be treated as the teens that they are and not adults.

            In the article, experts say “a decline in juvenile crime, concerns about the costs of adult prisons, and a growing understanding that adolescents have a greater potential for rehabilitation than adults do”. Meaning that teens have a better chance of recovering and changing than adults, so they should be charged as adolescents. According to psychology professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, Laurence Steinberg says “90% of teen offenders do not become adult criminals” and this shows that teens can change and learn from their actions. Research has also shown that a person’s actions at age 13 or 14 are poor indication of the kind of adult he or she will become.  Teens do have a chance to improve their lives and learn from their mistakes. They should be given a chance and be treated for the people that they are, teens not adults. If you give them a chance, they can change.