Juveniles Being Tried As Adults Jennifer Combs University of Mount Olive Steven N. Long, J.D. Abstract Juveniles Being Tried As Adults Numerous studies have been conducted with juvenile crimes and the outcomes from what happens after they have been put into criminal court. Legal procedures and laws that relate to juvenile offenders go back thousands of years when children disobeyed their parents, and sons would curse their fathers. The Roman civil law and canon law 2,000 years ago distinguished juveniles and adults based upon the idea of “age of responsibility”. The Moslem law also believed in leniency in punishing youthful offenders and children under the age of 17 be exempt from the death penalty. Roman law children under the age of 7 were classified as infants and were not held criminally responsible. If the youth were approaching the age of puberty and knew the difference between right and wrong, at that time, they would they be held accountable for the crimes they committed. In the 15-Century, England created a petition to those in need of aid or intervention, generally for women and children who were in need of assistance because of divorce, death of a spouse, or abandonment. The king could exercise the right of parens patriae, which became a basis for the juvenile court in America and was a doctrine that gave the courts authority over juveniles that were in need of guidance and protection, and would allow the state to act in loco parentis (in place of the parents) and to provide guidance and make decisions concerning the best interest of the child. Another pivotal point in the development of the juvenile justice system in America was what became known as the “child-saving movement”. T... ... middle of paper ... ...t and justice process. In Juvenile justice: A text/reader (pp. 20-30). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Meng, A., Segal, R., & Boden, E. (2013). American juvenile justice system: History in the making. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 25(3), 275-278. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2013-0062 (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2015, from http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/Downloads/laws/NC_Law.doc Pagnanelli, E. (2007). CHILDREN AS ADULTS: THE TRANSFER OF JUVENILES TO ADULT COURTS AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF ROPER V. SIMMONS. The American Criminal Law Review, 44(1), 175-194. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/230359891?accountid=12610 Shepherd,Robert E.,,Jr. (2008). Evidence mounts on wisdom of trying juveniles as adults. Criminal Justice, 22(4), 42-44. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/222860262?accountid=12610
This an extremely well written and powerful book written by Edward Humes. Humes shared his thoughts, observations, and criticisms about the juvenile justice system after a “riveting ride” through the Los Angeles Juvenile Court within his book, “No Matter How Loud I Shout.” The manner in which the book is written makes it fairly easy to read, demanding your attention while allowing for a simple follow along. I feel as if the book has given me much more insight and broader knowledge of the juvenile justice system, particularly the juvenile court system of Los Angeles.
Jenson, Jeffrey and Howard, Matthew. "Youth Crime, Public Policy, and Practice in the Juvenile Justice System: Recent Trends and Needed Reforms." Social Work 43 (1998): 324-32
Soulier, Matthew F. and Scott L. Charles. "Juveniles in Court." Harvard Review of Psychiatry (Nov 2010): 317-325.
Juvenile Justice Reforms in the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2011, from Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Courts: http://www.ojjdp.gov
Bartollas, Clemens and Miller, Stuart J. (2014). Juvenile justice in america (7 ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, 58-60.
Vito, Gennaro F., and Clifford E. Simonsen. Juvenile justice today. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.
The Juvenile Justice system, since its conception over a century ago, has been one at conflict with itself. Originally conceived as a fatherly entity intervening into the lives of the troubled urban youths, it has since been transformed into a rigid and adversarial arena restrained by the demands of personal liberty and due process. The nature of a juvenile's experience within the juvenile justice system has come almost full circle from being treated as an adult, then as an unaccountable child, now almost as an adult once more.
juvenile justice” (Elrod & Ryder, 2011) is to detour juvenile crimes and not be so easy on
Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is entirely eliminating the use of the life without parole sentence for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the crime being charged.
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
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.
Vito F. Gennaro, K. C. (2012). Juvenile Justice Today. New Jersey : Pearson Prentice Hall.
The United States has been affected by a number of crimes committed by juveniles. The juvenile crime rate has been increasing in recent years. Everyday more juveniles commit crimes for various reasons. They act as adults when they are not officially adults. There is a discussion about how juveniles should be punished if they commit heinous crimes. While many argue that juveniles who commit serious crimes, such as murder, should be treated as adults, the fact is, juveniles under the age of eighteen, are not adults, and should not be treated as such.
John P. Wright, Kären M. Hess, Christine H. Orthmann. "Juvenile Justice." Cengage Learning; 6 edition, 2012
Article 37 of the United Nations convention on the rights of children, ratified by every country in the world (except the United states and Somalia), expressly prohibits capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18. Under many laws, juveniles do not commit crimes but rather delinquent acts. However, some of these acts would constitute serious crimes if they were to be committed by adults. The debate remains to focus on whether or not juveniles are mature enough to see the consequences of their actions, and if they should be punished accordingly in adult courts. Another important consideration in this argument is the fact that juveniles in youth courts are being punished too mildly, and the fact that juveniles brains are not developed enough to understand their actions.