The juvenile court was created in the early 20th century when it was recognized that children and adults are different, and the rehabilitation process for them should be different as well. Until the late 19th century children and adults where tried alike in criminal courts. When a juvenile offender commits a crime it is the responsibility of the state to rehabilitate the juvenile offenders, as well as protect them. Youth crime rates have actually declined over the past twenty years, despite the public’s perception that it has increased. This has led to an overwhelming support that the juvenile court system be restructured to include tougher crime punishment, such as being able to try children as adults. This belief is that children are able to commit the same crimes as adults, and why should they be treated any different. Take for instance that if an adult commits a murder they will likely be in prison for the rest of their life, whereas a child or youth offender would likely be out by the time they are twenty one.

Juvenile and criminal courts have many differences but the most outstanding is that juvenile courts tend to focus on the offender rather than the crime itself. Juvenile court is long believed to focus on the rehabilitation of the offender, as opposed to the focus of the crime as in criminal court. With rehabilitation in mind this gives the court much more leniency and flexibility, with options as far as punishment goes to the judge. The main concern in the public’s eye is the effectiveness of the juvenile court system. Many juvenile offenders go on to become second offenders and greater. Another flaw that people see with the juvenile court system is that there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In criminal cases an offender can be convicted on the preponderance of evidence. Many states addressed these concerns by passing punitive laws that