More handpicked essays just for you.
Periods of juvenile justice history
The component of the juvenile justice system
The component of the juvenile justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
During the late 1800’s there was a decision made that children that had been accused of a crime would not be given the brutal treatment and punishment that the accused adults get. But instead they would help make sure the child knew what they had done wrong. They would try to “fix” the child. It first started with a trained social worker gathering information about the child’s background, history, likes, and dislikes. They would then head over to the judge tell or give them the data. After this the judge will discuss with the child about their troubles. Then it would be decided what would happen to the child, whether they would be given a warning, be on an experimental period, transferred to somewhere else, or if they would be sent to a place …show more content…
Although there are many different ways the juvenile court has been structured across the nation, there still exists the basic concept everywhere. The laws, and rules over these have been changed and made to include the general processes and procedures that previously existed.
In some societies, and neighborhoods a juvenile court is not present in that area. This means that in youth delinquency cases where there is not a juvenile court they must result to the subdivision of a court. For example, superior or circuit court. In Connecticut the delinquencies would be handled in the Superior court. This court is general jurisdiction. The one-hundred-fifty-nine counties of Georgia each have juvenile courts. There is a completely separate court for juveniles in Georgia although there is limited power of making legal conclusions. Inside of Connecticut there are thirteen districts that are responsible for taking care of juvenile crimes. However the criminal and civil matter are distributed among twenty-two different areas of Connecticut. The juvenile courts of Utah are single for all of the state with limited jurisdiction. Among the eight judicial districts, twenty different branches are split. Unlike Utah, Denver has a different court for juveniles, and it is a court that has general decision making
…show more content…
Although more commonly seen is up until the age of seventeen. In the states of New York, Connecticut, and North Carolina the age the highest age would be fifteen. In the ten states of Illinois, Georgia, South Carolina, Michigan Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Texas, and Wisconsin the highest age is 16. The upper age would be seventeen in the Columbia District and the remaining states. There are always exceptions with this as there are rules of how they can be under the age limit but depending on crime there is a chance that they could have to go to criminal
The process of transferring juveniles to adult courts has shown no effects on decreasing recidivism or a deterrent outcome. Waiver as it is known has three means by which a juvenile can be transferred to an adult court. Judicial waiver offenses, statutory exclusions, and concurrent jurisdiction are the three methods in which a waiver can occur. This research will describe each one of these methods with detail. It will also provide statistical facts showing why waiver can be a very debatable topic within the juvenile criminal justice system. In its totality it will discuss the arguments for and against waiver.
This quote by Edward Humes sums it up the best, “The fundamental question Juvenile Court was designed to ask - What's the best way to deal with this individual kid? - is often lost in the process, replaced by a point system that opens the door, or locks it, depending on the qualities of the crime, not the child.” (No Matter How Loud I shout, 1996, p. 325). The courts need to focus on what is best for the child and finding punishment that fits the child not the crime.
This paper will analyze the different theoretical issues pertaining to the modern juvenile court, determine their origin, and suggest a course of action for resolving these issues to the best extent possible. It is important to note, however, that the juvenile justice system alone cannot ever prevent all juvenile crime, respond perfectly to every situation or treat every suspect fairly. Furthermore, an effective antidote to modern juvenile crime would necessitate far broader action, addressing underlying social structure inequalities that breed poverty and social disorganization.
In the last 42 years little to no changes have been made to correct the standards that govern punitive measures towards juvenile delinquency. Today juvenile law is governed by state and many states have enacted a juvenile code. However, in numerous cases, juveniles are transferred to adult court when juvenile courts waive or relinquish jurisdiction. Adolescents should not be tried in the adult court system or sentenced to adult penitentiary's on account of: teen brains are not mature which causes a lack of understanding towards the system, incarceration in an adult facility increases juvenile crime, and children that are sentenced to adult prison are vulnerable to abuse and rape.
With increased media coverage of violent juvenile behavior, legislators began to pass laws to toughen up on juvenile crime. Many laws made it easier to waive juveniles into adult courts, or even exclude juveniles who had committed serious crimes from juvenile court jurisdiction. Furthermore, the sentences to be handed out for offenders were lengthened and made much more severe. As a result, the juvenile courts began to resemble the adult courts. Yet, this movement’s influence began to fade, and by the turn of the century, another shift had occurred. In the current juvenile courts, a balanced approach is emphasized. While the court deals with chronic and dangerous offenders with a heavy hand, needy youth who need help to get back on track are still assisted under the parens patriae philosophy. Restorative justice has come to be the preferred method of today’s juvenile courts. In an overall sense, the modern juvenile court has taken on a paternalistic view similar to parens patriae towards youths who are in need of guidance, while punitively punishing offenders who do not respond to the helping hand extended to
It was during the mid nineteenth century in England when the parliament initially recognised juvenile delinquency as a distinctive social phenomenon and accepted the responsibility not only for young offenders, but also for the children who, though not in trouble with the law, required full care and protection. Children who stood before the courts were no longer seen as little adults but were seen as beings in their own rights who were entitled because they lack full responsibility for their actions. Through this change in status it accomplished the introduction of reformatory rather than punitive treatment. A reformatory system undoubtedly distinguishes a child’s offence from an adult crime replaced penal systems which made little dedicated provisions for children. This departure culminated in Herbert Samuels Children Act 1908 (Margaret May 2002). The Children Act 1908 represented a key step in the progress of the idea that children were a special category of problem. Through the establishment of Juvenile Courts which were criminal courts in terms of the procedures and giving them jurisdiction over the care and protection issues. The Juvenile Courts became the family law courts which dispensed family justice. The courts and the state can intervene for the first time in working-class family life when children are seen to be immoral, conditions which were regarded as neglect included: truancy, begging, being beyond control etc...
The historical development of the juvenile justice system in the United States is one that is focused on forming and separating trying juveniles from adult counterparts. One of the most important aspects is focusing on ensuring that there is a level of fairness and equality with respect to the cognitive abilities and processes of juveniles as it relates to committing crime. Some of the most important case legislation that would strengthen the argument in regard to the development of the juvenile justice system is related to the reform of the justice system during the turn of the 19th century. Many juveniles were unfortunately caught in the crosshairs of being tried as adults and ultimately receiving punishments not in line with their ability to understand their actions or be provided a second chance.
This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.
The juvenile court system and the adult court system are two different systems. They work in different was and have different goals when dealing with someone who appears in court. They have different procedures and different rules to go by. The adult court system started before the juvenile court system.
In chapter 10 the book talks about Juvenile courts. Juvenile court is a court of law that has jurisdiction over minors. The purpose for juvenile courts is to offer juveniles justice and treatment. In most states, juvenile court purpose clauses fall into one or more of five categories (Synder and Sickmund 2006, 98). The five categories are balance and restorative justice clauses, standard juvenile court act clause, legislative guide clause, clauses that emphasize punishment and traditional child welfare. In all states the courts puts children under three classification. The first one is those who are neglected or abused. The second is status offenders. The third is those who broke the law. There has been several issues on deciding if a child can tried in an adult court. What’s the appropriate age? The nature of the crime depends on if the child will be tried in adult court or not.
Under age 7, ages 7-14, and over age 14 are the three age groups for determining children’s capacity to commit a crime. Children under the age of 7 that commit a crime have no criminal capacity, children between 7-14 children are presumed to not have criminal capacity, but it can be overturned, and children over 14 have the same capacity as adults.
The book “No Matter How Loud I Shout” written by Edward Humes, looks at numerous major conflicts within the juvenile court system. There is a need for the juvenile system to rehabilitate the children away from their lives of crime, but it also needs to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous of its juveniles, causing one primary conflict. Further conflict arises with how the court is able to administer proper treatment or punishment and the rights of the child too due process. The final key issue is between those that call for a complete overhaul of the system, and the others who think it should just be taken apart. On both sides there is strong reasoning that supports each of their views, causing a lot of debate about the juvenile court system.
Have you ever wondered what the process is for a juvenile? How it is different than adult court? What is the process of getting waived to adult court? The first Juvenile court was started in Cook county in 1899. You are a juvenile in till you reach the age of eighteen. After that you are considered an adult. In till you reach the adult age you go to juvenile court in less waived into adult court. After you reach the age of eighteen and you get in trouble with the law you attend adult court.
The juvenile system was first established in the United States around 1899 when Illinois had their first court appearance including a juvenile. This then led to the Nation’s first juvenile system being created, which was for youth under the age of eighteen who have been convicted of crimes. Up until then, most youth were tried as an adult until the system was put into place. The system has different sections in which they youth is taken in such as: intake, adjudication, disposition, and post adjudicatory.
The U.S made legal history in 1989 when the world’s first juvenile court opened in Chicago (Rank, J.) Since 1990 many states have also adopted the “get tough” approach to juvenile justice as a response to the increasingly violent crimes committed by children. Juvenile crime escalated to an all time high, and then started to decrease in 1995 when images on television, such as the Springfield, Oregon, rampage of 15-year-old Kip Kinkel who shot both of his parents and then two of his classmates. The impression of citizens in the United States was that juvenile crime is out of control. (Levinson) Now Juveniles are being prosecuted a lot more than adults in adult courts.