There have been continuous shifts in how juveniles should be prosecuted, influenced by factors such as societal attitudes, concerns about public safety, and perception of juvenile offenders. Parens Patriae is the foundation for the state to intervene and protect children whose parents did not provide adequate care or supervision. Parens Patriae allowed for what is referred to as individualized justice since this philosophy promoted the idea that not every child in every situation should receive the same treatment. According to parens patriae the court should be responsible for balancing the needs of children, their families, and the community. While the doctrine of parens patriae continues to be the guiding principle behind the actions of the juvenile court, problems remain concerning the treatment of children. Treatment traditionally was the goal in dealing with delinquents, the emphasis on subjectivity and individuality, as well as the potential punishment involved, led to many instances in which juveniles were not afforded constitutional protections during judicial proceedings. The arguments for and against parens patriae are compelling but I think that this philosophy allows for more discretion and options toward juveniles in court proceedings and allows for the determining factors of the case to either continue as juveniles or be tried as adults, making me believe that states shouldn't pass laws to treat juveniles as adults.

Why do you agree? Explain your thorough and thoughtful supporting statements with experiences?