Introduction In every state a young person who violates the law is faced with two different justice systems in which they may be asked to pay their debt to society. One allows them to come alongside others their own age to seek rehabilitation and restoration. The other places them among adults from across the state and seeks to only deter future delinquent behavior through punishment. Forty-three states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government choose to place a seventeen-year-old in a juvenile justice system and recognize all those under the age of eighteen as a child. Many countries around the world also send seventeen-year-olds to a juvenile court system. Examples include Canada , Mexico , Austria, Germany, Spain, and Guatemala, …show more content…
This system was created to safeguard juveniles by “placing them in protective environments and teaching them about discipline, morality, values and productive work." In 1918, Texas altered the jurisdiction of its juvenile system to include all minors up to the age of sixteen, which had previously included only those under age fourteen. In an effort to coordinate the state’s efforts to administer justice and seek rehabilitation of this age group, in 1949 the state established the Texas Youth Development Council. In 2011, the state legislature again saw a need for massive reform of the system on account of rampant allegations of abuse by juveniles in the system. It decided to create the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) and enact a long list of other reforms to remedy these concerns. Most recently, the legislature has passed a bill requiring TJJD to develop a plan for establishing local, secure community correctional facilities that will allow juveniles to stay closer to their community and family. Texas has a long history of adopting positive reforms to its juvenile justice system. It can again seek to make positive change by aligning itself with the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that treat seventeen-year-olds in their juvenile justice …show more content…
Therefore, Texas law provides that all seventeen-year-olds are automatically treated as adults in the justice system and excluded from the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts, regardless of the circumstances in which the violation of state or local law occurred. To bring Texas in line with the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions and further the state’s efforts of creating a restorative justice system, legislation should be enacted that would raise the age of those covered by the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts to include seventeen-year-olds. This legislation would not completely deny the ability for a seventeen-year-old to be tried or punished as an adult in extraordinary circumstances. Other provisions of Texas law currently enacted, such as discretionary judicial waiver and blended sentencing, allow a youth to be treated as an adult by the justice system but do so on a basis that considers the individual circumstances of each case. By removing this harmful one size fits all classification, Texas can successfully restore more young men or women to a productive position in society after his or her interaction with the justice
One of the fasting growing juvenile treatment and interventions programs are known as teen courts. Teen courts serve as an alternative juvenile justice, to young offenders. Non-violent, and mostly first time offenders are sentenced by their peers’ in teen courts. Teen courts also serve as juvenile justice diversion programs. Teen courts vary from state to state, and sometimes within the same state. With this program, all parties of the judicial setting are juveniles with the exception of the judge. Each teen court, is designed specifically to meet the needs of the community it serves. Teen courts were created to re-educate offenders throughout the judicial process, create a program with sanctions that will allow the youth not to have a juvenile record, and to also instil a sense of responsibility.
Within the last five years, violent offenses by children have increased 68 percent, crimes such as: murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Honestly, with these figures, it is not surprising at all that the Juveniles Courts focus less on the children in danger, and focus more on dangerous children. This in fact is most likely the underlying reasoning behind juveniles being tried as adults by imposing harsher and stiffer sentences. However, these policies fail to recognize the developmental differences between young people and
Juvenile Justice Reforms in the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2011, from Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Courts: http://www.ojjdp.gov
Within the last decade, new laws and policy implementations have occurred which fostered a growing juvenile justice population. Bills such as SB160 also known as, “Back the Badge”, passed in Georgia this 2017 legislative session, which criminalizes thirteen years, giving them a felony charge if convicted. Other states have also followed Georgia with their legislation, making it easier to try and incarcerate youth leading to approximately 200,00 youth under the age of 18 being tried as an adult each year without dealing with the root causes of their behavior.1 Because states reduced the age of their criminal court jurisdiction it increased the prosecutorial power to “direct file” youth into criminal court; resulting in the creation of offense-based
For many years, states have believed that the juvenile justice system came about to protect the public by providing a system that helps children who are maturing into adulthood. States understand that children who commit crimes are different from adults. They believe that children are less blameworthy, and have a greater capacity for change. To make up for these differences, states have created a separate court system for juveniles, and they have created a separate, youth based system that is different than that provided to adults.
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.
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.
What is important to understand in terms of the difference between the juvenile and adult system is that there is a level of dependency that is created between the two and the juvenile system focuses on how to help rather than in prison individuals at such a young age. However, it usually depends on the type of crimes that have been committed and what those crimes mean for the families and how they impact the greater society. The adult system distinguishes between dependence and delinquency mainly because there is a psychological transition that occurs with juveniles that is not always a predictor of a cyclical life of crime. However, if an adult is committed to the justice system, there can be a dependency of delinquency and a cycle of crime that is more likely to be sustained at that age and level of cognitive ability than in comparison to a juvenile. The reasoning behind this is important is that it is focused on maintaining a level of attention to the needs and capacity abilities of individuals living and working in different types of societies (Zinn et al., 2017).
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.
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While California's juvenile population rose by a half a million since the middle and late 1970's, juveniles made up less than fifth-teen percent of California's felony arrests in 1998, compared to thirty percent in 1978; according to the Justice Policy Institute. The juvenile arrests have dropped back, even as the population of kids between ages of ten and eight-teen has continued to grow, and the number of kids confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA) has fallen. With all the progress our society has made in cutting back in juvenile crimes there is still a very serious problem. But if locking kids up is the best way to address it, how do we explain a drop in crime when there are more teens in California and fewer in custody? First we must look at the economy around us. With so many job opportunities available more and more teenagers find honest ways to keep busy and make money. Our generation has a brighter future than the generation a decade ago. Next we look at successful crime prevention efforts: after-school programs, mentoring, teen outreach programs, truancy abatement, anti-gang programs, family resource centers. There is evidence that these programs are beginning to pay off. Sending more, and younger teens through the adult court system has been a trend across the country in reaction to crimes, such as school shootings and violent rapes. Yet evidence shows that treating youth as adults does not reduce crime. In Florida, where probability wise more kids are tried as adults then in any other state, studies found that youth sent through the adult court system are twice as likely to commit more crimes when they're release...
Many people say that the systems first priority should be to protect the public from the juvenile criminals that are a danger to others. Once the juveniles enter the system there is however, arguments on what should be done with them. Especially for those deemed too dangerous to be released back to their parents. Some want them locked away for as long as possible without rehabilitation, thinking that it will halt their criminal actions. One way to do this they argue would be to send them into an adult court. This has been a large way to reform the juvenile system, by lowering the age limits. I believe in certain cases this is the best method for unforgiving juveniles convicted of murder, as in the case of Ronald Duncan, who got away with a much lesser sentence due to his age. However another juvenile, Geri Vance, was old enough to be sent into the adult court, which caused him t...
Jake Evans, a 17-year-old teenage boy, murdered his mother and sister by firing multiple gunshots at home in Texas (Brown, 2012; Walsh, 2012). After this heinous act, he made a 911 call to inform the dispatcher what he had done with a calm voice. Evans’s cold-blood double homicide case led the media to depict him as an malevolent adolescent, even the judge hearing over Evans’s case refused to drop the capital murder charge against Evans (Winter, 2013). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that individuals who are under the age of 18 at the time of their offense should not be sentenced to death or life without parole (Miller v. Alabama, 2012; Roper v. Simmons, 2005). Evans’s public defender requested to try the boy with murder instead of capital murder which has only two punitive sentencing outcomes in Texas--- life without parole and death penalty (Douglas, 2013). However, both sentences would be unconstitutional to Evans because he was 17 years old when he committed offense (Winter, 2013). As the judge insisted to charge Evans with the capital offense, once Evans was convicted, the judge, however, will face another issue which is how to deliver a lawful and appropriate verdict. Therefore, to resolve the problem, the Texas District and County Attorneys Association is attempting to revise the law without violating the initial Supreme Court ruling (Winter, 2013). When the public and the media encounter cases like Jake Evans’s, they tend to overemphasize on what the defendants have done and how to punish them rather focus on what happened to the juvenile offenders while growing up and what drove them to their actions. The purpose of this essay is to shift from the unjust emphasis on one portion of cases, the legal process, to how this al...
A deep look into juveniles in adult prisons. Touch bases on several smaller issues that contribute to juveniles being in and effects of adult prisons. The United States Bureau of Prisons handles two hundred and thirty-nine juveniles and their average age is seventeen. Execution of juveniles, The United States is one of only six countries to execute juveniles. There are sixty-eight juveniles sitting on death row for crimes committed as juveniles. Forty-three of those inmates are minorities. People, who are too young to vote, drink alcohol, or drive are held to the same standard of responsibility as adults. In prisons, they argue that the juveniles become targets of older, more hardened criminals. Brian Stevenson, Director of the Alabama Capital Resource Center said, “We have totally given up in the idea of reform of rehabilitation for the very young. We are basically saying we will throw those kids away. Leading To Prison Juvenile Justice Bulletin Report shows that two-thirds of juveniles apprehended for violent offenses were released or put on probation. Only slightly more than one-third of youths charged with homicide was transferred to adult criminal court. Little more than one out of every one hundred New York youths arrested for muggings, beatings, rape and murder ended up in a correctional institution. Another report showed a delinquent boy has to be arrested on average thirteen times before the court will act more restrictive than probation. Laws began changing as early as 1978 in New York to try juveniles over 12 who commit violent crimes as adults did. However, even since the laws changed only twenty percent of serious offenders served any time. The decision of whether to waive a juven...
This paper describes the various legislations and movements that were established in 19th century to address the issue of juvenile justice system. It outlines the challenges faced by the legislation and movements and their implications in addressing the issues of the juvenile justice system.
The dilemma of juvenile incarceration is a problem that thankfully has been declining, but still continues to be an ethical issue. The de-incarceration trend has coincided with a decrease in crime. It is hopeful that our nation is changing the approach to the treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. It means we know what to do and what is working, now just to follow through and continue the change to creating a juvenile justice system that is truly rehabilitative and gives youth tools to be able to be positive members of