Establishing distinct differences in how juvenile offenders are arrested, as opposed to adults, has always presented challenges in criminal justice. On one hand, public opinion and prevalent thinking about maturity levels and age demand that juveniles be treated less harshly than adults, as it is typically supposed that their offenses are not driven by adult decision-making processes. Conversely, certain crimes, as well as certain juvenile offenders, defy this reasoning by the very extremity and purpose of the offenses committed. The reality, however, that seems increasingly evident is that these distinctions must be made in regard more to pre-adolescent offenders; it is apparent that, in a modern world wherein teenagers are greatly empowered to act on their own, and far more so than in generations past, they are as well obligated to face adult treatment.

Juvenile Arrest as Compared to Adult Arrest

The manner in which a juvenile offender is arrested must be dictated by how “juvenile” is defined in the first place, and the definition varies across the United States, as it has also changed over time. Currently, in most states, a juvenile is anyone under between seventeen and eighteen years of age.

That noted, there are specific and substantial differences in how juveniles are arrested. For one thing, if the offense is of a misdemeanor scale, the police officer does not need to actually witness it, as must be the case in an adult misdemeanor arrest. Then, the arresting officer is strictly obligated to notify the parents or guardian of the juvenile, and as soon as possible: there is usually a twenty-four time constraint on this but, again, it is typically done at the time of arrest. Moreover, “…in many instances…the youth is released into the custody of his or her parents…” (Elrod, Ryder, 2009,  p. 192).

Beyond these differences, there are other ways in which the juvenile is treated apart from the adult, and they may be interpreted as either more lenient or less in keeping with basic rights. On the lenient side, a juvenile has opportunities for release the arrested adult does not have; the officer, the probation officer they face, and the judge are all empowered to set them free. The traditional view of the juvenile offender as a probably misguided youth still enables this discretion on the part of the system.

On the other hand, this same discretionary power denies the juvenile offender rights the adult has. Bail, for instance, that would automatically may be offered to the adult, is not necessarily an option for the juvenile. The juvenile may also be held without a preliminary hearing. It is also mandated that, while detained, the juvenile is never held with adult offenders. The entire process bespeaks an old-fashioned, nearly parental approach: “The courts will try to ensure that the child learns from his or her experience and returns to the community as a productive citizen, without having suffered permanent harm” (FindLaw).

Assessment

The U.S. criminal justice system faces many and enormous challenges, and one of them lies in finally accepting that desirable, old-fashioned views of juvenile offenders as merely unlucky, or temporarily misguided, teens must be changed. Modern realities tell a very different story:

“Overall, juveniles constitute about sixteen percent of all arrests for violent crime” (Herrenkohl, et al., 2010, p. 51).

In regard to actual children, it is both essential and sensible to not attribute them with any real decision-making abilities. Young adults, however, as older teens are, are already equipped with the basic knowledge of what is acceptable behavior in their society. Allowances for youthful mistakes should be made, but the greater emphasis must be on acknowledging that the average juvenile offender made a conscious, criminal choice.