Create a positive feed back to this discussion post and make it a paragraph long:

Discuss how the juvenile court system is supposed to be distinctly different from the criminal court system. What are some of the differences that are supposed to characterize the different systems Are those difference still there? Are the differences still worth promoting?

The juvenile court system in the United States was originally designed to be very different from the adult criminal adult system.

Its main purpose was not to punish but to guide young people toward rehabilitation and growth. Cox, Allen, Hanser, and Conrad (2021) explain that the system was built on the idea of parens patriae, which means the state steps in almost like a parent to help youth who are not yet fully mature. This guiding philosophy shaped everything from language to procedure. For example, a young person is not "convicted" of a crime but instead "adjudicated delinquent," and hearings are often closed to the public to protect privacy. The system also allows for more flexible outcomes, such as diversion, probation, counseling, or placement in treatment programs, rather than only locking someone up. These differences highlight the belief that kids should be given the chance to change and not be defined for life by one mistake.

While those differences still exist, they have weakened over the years. For instance, transfer laws allow some youth to be tried in adult court for serious crimes, and some juvenile facilities operate more like adult prisons than rehabilitative centers. This shift worries me because it goes against the original purpose of juvenile courts. Still, research shows that young people are developmentally different from adults. Their brains are still developing, which affects decision-making, impulse control, and how they understand consequences (Cox et al., 2021). I personally agree with the idea that these differences matter because I know many teenagers who made poor choices simply because they didn't think long-term. When given support, some of those same teens were able to turn things around. That makes me believe the separation between juvenile and adult systems is still worth protecting. Rehabilitation gives youth the chance to reset their lives, and in the long run, that helps communities by reducing repeat offenses.

Discuss the upper and lower age limits. Why do these vary across states? Have some states moved to raise the upper age from 16 or 17 years to 18 years of age? Why? What does this allow states to do?

Another big issue in juvenile justice is how states set the age boundaries for who is considered a juvenile. Both the lower and upper age limits vary depending on the state. Some states set the lower age at 7, 10, or 12, while others do not have a minimum at all. The upper age has usually been 16 or 17, but more states have been raising it to 18 in recent years. These differences reflect each state's history, laws, and politics. Cox et al. (2021) note that this inconsistency creates unequal treatment, because a 17-year-old in one state could be tried as an adult while a 17-year-old in another state would be handled in juvenile court. That doesn't seem fair, especially since research shows that 16- and 17-year-olds are still going through major developmental changes.

The "Raise the Age" movement has led states like New York, Connecticut, and Missouri to raise the upper age to 18. The Sentencing Project (2020) reports that this change keeps older teens in the juvenile system, where they can access services that focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment. Personally, I think this is a smart move because it prevents teens from being exposed to adult prisons, which are often unsafe and can push youth further into crime. It also allows their records to be sealed more easily, giving them better opportunities for education and jobs later. Research even shows that raising the age saves money in the long run by reducing recidivism and future incarceration costs (The Sentencing Project, 2020). From my perspective, it makes sense to invest in rehabilitation for teens rather than spend more money on punishing them as adults when they could still be redirected.

Overall, the differences between juvenile and adult courts remain important, and raising the age to 18 reflects a better understanding of adolescent development. Even though the line between the two systems has blurred in some ways, the evidence supports keeping them separate and treating young people with more opportunities for change. I believe these differences are worth promoting because they not only give youth a second chance but also improve public safety and reduce long-term costs for society.