There is ongoing debate as to what should be done with juvenile courts. Should juvenile courts be abolished or just reformed? There are a number of reasons offered for each viewpoint, and the ultimate goal is trying to figure out which option would be most beneficial for juveniles. Juvenile delinquency is a continuous problem in the United States. It is also considered an issue that all of society needs to take part in trying to solve or at least diminish. Despite the number of social controls that can aid in dealing with delinquency much of the burden is placed on the juvenile justice system. It is well understood that the juvenile courts have a lot of imperfections. These imperfections are what caused the calls for reform or abolishment. There are a number of recommendations that Barry C. Feld offered that could serve as reforms. Some of his recommendations pertain to rehabilitation, welfare, resources and rights. Despite these recommendations Feld still prefers abolishment or more specifically creating an integrated system. Before discussing whether abolishment or reform is a better option it is important to address the recommendations Feld suggested as areas of the juvenile court system that need reform. One of the most important recommendations made by Feld is returning to the rehabilitative premise of juvenile courts. The juvenile court system was originally created to emphasize rehabilitation as opposed to punishment. In addition, the courts were meant to provide a way of protecting children from the harshness of the adult court, which emphasized obtaining guilt and punishing the individual (Hickey, 2010). The dichotomies of “treatment-punishment” and “child-adult” have been skewed and have resulted in a ch... ... middle of paper ... ...se the adult courts are as capable of dealing with juveniles. Ultimately, there is no need to reform an imperfect juvenile court system that is not serving the purpose it was meant to achieve. By integrating the juvenile courts with adult criminal court juveniles will have a greater chance of receiving the justice they have been waiting to obtain from the current juvenile system. References Fortas, J. (1967). Opinion of the Court SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: 387 U.S. 1 In re Gault. Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0387_0001_ZO.html Hickey, T. J. (2010). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Crime and Criminology, 9th Edition. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Kelly, C.T., Unit 3: Slideshow, University of Everest Online, 8 August 2010.
Studies and anecdotes have shown that our modern approach, however, is ill-equipped to reduce crime or deal with chronic delinquents while at the same time protecting their due liberties. We now stand on the precipice of decision: How can we strike an appropriate balance in the juvenile justice system? Should we even retain a separate system for children at all? The answers are usually difficult, sometimes subtle, but always possible to attain.
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. Edward Humes follows the cases of seven teenagers in juvenile court, and those surrounding them.
The focus of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, rather than to imprison and punish like the systems adult counterpart. According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. This has lead to the development of a separate justice system for juveniles that was initially designed to assist troubled juveniles providing them with protection, treatment, and guidance. When performing as it is designed and up to the initial intentions, the juvenile court balances rehabilitation (treatment) of the offender with suitable sanctions when necessary such as incarceration. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “how can we help the child”, “why did the child commit the crime” to “was the crime committed”. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. The prerequisites for transfer to adult court are the duty to protect the public from violent youths, serious crime, and the lack of rehabilitation chance from the juvenile court. According to Flesch (2004) many jurisdictions handle the issue of serious juvenile crime by charging juveniles as adults. Charging a juvenile as an adult is done by a method which is called waiver to adult court. This waiver allows adult criminal court to have the power to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles and handle the juvenile’s case as an adult’s case would be tried. According to Flesch (2004) a juvenile is both tried and if convicted of the crime the juvenile will be sentenced as an adult when his or her case is waived from the juvenile court. Waiver to adult court initially was viewe...
Hickey, T. J. (2010). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Crime and Criminology, 9th Edition. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
When our thoughts turn to the criminal justice system it is only a natural instinct to assume everyone associated with policing, courts, and corrections will have to deal with juveniles sometime in their career. Young people in today’s society can be so easily influenced by social situations, peer pressure, and family members. The courts in the United States are faced with difficult decisions on a daily basis. Sentencing juveniles to adult facilities for their crimes is becoming a common trend in the justice system today; however it is not a deterrent whatsoever. “The current policies of juvenile bind over to adult criminal court and severe sentencing have been unsuccessful
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.
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
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 is, unfortunately, funded on false premises. Its purpose is to shield youths from their consequences of their own actions. A crime is a crime, no matter what. Kids are not shielded from the world like they use to be, they know what is right and what is wrong. The Juvenile court also fails to deter violence among the delinquents. The current juvenile crime problem, requires that we punish the current delinquents in order to deter the next generation from becoming offenders (Houghton Mifflin
Juveniles can be transferred to the adult court through the judicial waiver on a case-by-case basis. The decision is usually made at the prosecution ‘s request and follows by a transfer hearing. The other popular transfer mechanisms dating from the 1970s are the automatic transfer and prosecutorial discretion. For automatic transfer, juveniles who are accused of serious crimes are inevitably moved up to adult court. For prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors make the decision to file charges in adult court. There is no doubt that juveniles should be punished for their actions, but the punishment should take into consideration that young adults are capable to change such as community-based rehabilitation programs. In addition, the mind of the
The adult system’s shifts leaked into the juvenile system, causing an increase in incarcerations even when delinquency rates were declining at the time. Juvenile reform legislations prompted more compulsory sentencing and more determinate sentences for juveniles, lowering of the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction, considerable ease in obtaining waivers to adult court for juvenile prosecution, and made it easier to gain access to juvenile records as well. Furthermore, it led to greater preoccupation with chronic, violent offenders, which in turn led to a redirection of resources for their confinement. Thereby, the absence of reliable criteria for identifying such offenders tends to stereotype all delinquents and is more likely to raise the level of precautionary confinements. These three major shifts in juvenile justice policy demonstrate the power and depth of traditional beliefs about the causes and cures of crimes in U.S. society. It also shows how the system can bend for a time in the direction of new approaches to prevention and control. Today, we are presently in a time of conservative responses where the prevailing views about crime express beliefs about prevention, retribution, and incapacitation that are profoundly rooted in our
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 juvenile 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
Due to the increased recognized differences between adults and juveniles in terms of needs and developmental capabilities, offender’s treatment differ depending on whether they are treated in an adult or juvenile court. In the adult court jurisdiction, public safety and retribution are the most salient tenets while in the juvenile courts the best the intentions are intended towards the best interest of the child focusing on rehabilitation. The best goals and objectives of the juvenile court sanctions aim at ensuring that the youth in trial at the juvenile court desists from delinquent behavior and thus easy to be reintegrated in the society once more. This fact is mainly achieved through offering the youth individualized case management programs
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