Juveniles rights to a jury Essay

There are very few states in the United States that persist the right to a jury of their peers for juveniles. Why shouldnt juveniles be able to stand a psychometric test with a jury of their peers? By law, minors are incapable of representing themselves or making decisions that are base on the current law presiding for the circumstances. Which basically means that juveniles are only children, children that dont unfeignedly get by what responsibility or breaking the law is yet. Plus a juveniles point is private so if they stood in front of a jury then it wouldnt be so private now would it? Also, juveniles arent convicted for the offenses they engage in, they are convicted for the delinquent actions as a minor. The two exceptions, that I myself book found, are either if the crime is serious enough to try the juvenile as an swelled or, as said earlier, the state allows juveniles a trial in which a jury is present.I chose this designer because many people do not understand that juveniles are children, not adults. These days parents treat their children as adults so the children commit crimes as if they were an adult. That being said, people need to realize that juveniles are exactly that. Although they have been taught things about the community, the world, laws, right/wrong, and so forth, they havent actually lived to understand all these things so wherefore should they be tried by a jury of peers that dont understand that fact? This brings me to the nigh question, why do I believe there are differences in the adult and juvenile rightness system and why do I believe so? The answer is basically what Ive unless stated in this whole discussion. Juveniles are children, children who hasnt actually lived enough in this world to know. Adults know better. So does it make any sense to try people in the royal court of law whom dont know any better the same as a psyche who does know?