Juvenile Courts in United States Persons aged below 18 years are regarded as underage and when they break the law they are not charged in the adult courts. They are charged in the young offender courts which are also called Juvenile courts. For an offender to be eligible for juvenile court, he or she must be under the state’s laws categorized as a juvenile. The age of 18 years is the maximum age at which an offender can use juvenile courts. The applicable age in a few states is 16 or 17 years, while Wyoming State has 19 years as the maximum age. In that regard people aged above 18 years are not eligible to undergo trial in juvenile courts. Apart from the maximum age limit, the states have also set the minimum age that a child is eligible for juvenile courts. In most of the states those under the age of 7 are not eligible for the courts since they cannot make a difference between what is wrong and what is right. Ritter (2010) claims that persons under the age of seven years may not be capable of forming guilt mind. The decision whether children aged between 7 and 14 years has the ability of forming a guilty mind is done by the judges. If the judge believes that the child had a capability of forming a criminal intent he can send him to the juvenile court. In juvenile courts, judges have an obligation of determining the fate of the juvenile offender: circumstances under which the juveniles are detained; when they are to be released; and how long their sentence is to take. In most of the states, children aged 14 years and above are believed to be having a capability of forming criminal intent. Hence most of the cases that involve those aged between 14 and 18 years are resolved in the juvenile courts. According to the federal st... ... middle of paper ... ... Fall97, Vol. 88 Issue 1, p190, 51p Kristin, H., (2009). What's Wrong with Victims' Rights in Juvenile Court?: Retributive Versus Rehabilitative Systems of Justice. California Law Review; Aug2009, Vol. 97 Issue 4, p1107-1170, 64p Packel, A. K., (2002). Juvenile Justice and the Punishment of Recidivists Under California's Three Strikes Law. California Law Review; Jul2002, Vol. 90 Issue 4, p1157, 46p Ritter, M. J., (2010). Just (Juvenile Justice) Jargon: An Argument for Terminological Uniformity Between the Juvenile and Criminal Justice Systems. American Journal of Criminal Law; Spring2010, Vol. 37 Issue 2, p221-240, 20p Sellers, B. G., & Arrigo, B. A., (2009). Adolescent transfer, developmental maturity, and adjudicative competence: an ethical and justice policy inquiry. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology; Spring2009, Vol. 99 Issue 2, p435-487, 53p
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.
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...
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
A movement has started in our country to renovate the juvenile justice system. This movement wants to erase any differences between young offenders and adult criminals. Almost all fifty states have changed their juvenile justice laws, allowing more youths to be tried as adults...
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...
Thousands of kid criminals in the United States have been tried as adults and sent to prison (Equal Justice Initiative). The debate whether these kids should be tried as adults is a huge controversy. The decision to try them or to not try them as an adult can change their whole life. “Fourteen states have no minimum age for trying children as adults” (Equal Justice Initiative). Some people feel that children are too immature to fully understand the severity of their actions. People who are for kids to be tried as adults feel that if they are old enough to commit the crime, then they are old enough to understand what they are doing. There are people who feel that children should only be tried as adults depending on the crime.
Shawn was 16 in 1998 when he violently stabbed his father in his sleep, was tried as a juvenile because of his pre-existing parasomnia, and was sentenced to juvenile hall until his 19th birthday. Jose, 15 in 1998, engaged in a deadly brawl with four other teenagers, tried as a juvenile and sentenced to 208 days in juvenile hall. Marquese, 17, considered a “frequent flyer” of the juvenile system, reoffended on parole by stealing a car and breaking and entering, was tried as a juvenile and paroled in 2001. Manny, 17 in 1999 attacked a family in his neighborhood with a baseball bat alongside two other gang members. One of the victims was six months pregnant. He was tried as an adult and sentenced to nine years in prison. Jordan Brown, now 12, is currently awaiting trial for the murder of his father’s pregnant girlfriend, where he will be tried as an adult for both the murder of the woman and the fetus. What were the factors that decided Manny and Jordan’s case would be tried as adults? Manny and Jordan’s case went to adult court, while other children and teenagers are tried and sentenced in the juvenile system. The court systems have criteria for trying children as adults, taking into account different factors within the crimes themselves. How exactly does th...
Every state allows children under sixteen to be tried as adults, but new research indicates that many cannot understand their situations well enough to aid their defense. A study by the private MacArthur Foundation says that many children under sixteen have as much difficulty grasping the legal proceedings as adults who had been ruled incompetent to go to court. The study, by John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, looked at more than 1,400 people between the ages of 11 and 24 in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Northern and Eastern Virginia, and Northern Florida. They were given an intelligence test and asked to respond to several hypothetical legal situations, such as whether to confess to a police officer. The results found that one-third of those 11 to 13 and one-fifth of those 14 or 15 could not understand the proceedings or help lawyers defend them. The study recommends that states reconsider the minimum age for juveniles to be tried as adults or to develop a system for evaluating young defendants' competence (Salant 2003).
The Criminal Justice System’s main goal is to “deliver justice for all, by convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them to stop offending, while protecting the innocent” (Garside). Juveniles who murder, steal, etc. are guilty. It does not matter their age because they have
In 1899, the nation’s first juvenile court for youth under the age of 16 was established in Chicago to provide rehabilitation rather than punishment. By 1925, following the Chicago model, all but two states had juvenile courts whose goals were to turn youth into productive citizens utilizing treatment that included warnings, probation, and training school confinement(Cox et al. 2014, p.2). Treatment lasted until the child was “cured” or turned 21. Although judges spoke with the offending children and decided upon the punishment, the lack of established rules and poor rehabilitation led to unfair treatment. In 1967 “ U.S. Supreme Court case of In re Gault held that juveniles were entitled to the same constitutional due process rights as adults, beginning a national reform in juvenile justice and the system was repaired to afford children many of the same rights that adults have in court” (Cox et al. 2014, p.4). Also, state legislatures passed laws to crack down on juvenile crime, as recently, states have attempted strike a balance in their approach to juvenile justice systems as research suggests that locking youth away in large, secure juvenile facilities is ineffective treatment towards different genders in which it doesn’t provide appropriate rehabilitation.
Presently, juvenile justice is widely acknowledged as being in a state of flux in the United States. The early 1990s saw the most substantial rise in violent crime committed by juveniles ever experienced in this country. On the heels of decades of skepticism about the effectiveness of parens patriae (the state as parent), this rise was the "proof" for many "experts" who believe that the juvenile justice system should be abolished. These skeptics reason that one criminal court could still have some latitude when sentencing younger offenders, but that kids are now committing adult crimes, so it is time to treat them as adults.
Since the establishment of the first juvenile court in Chicago Illinois for over 100 years (Grisso, 199,813) ago, psychologists have continued to show a strong presence in juvenile proceedings and assist the juvenile justice system, as well as young people involved in it. a special court and the justice system for minors, partly in response to the recognition that adolescents, while clearly shows greater cognitive, emotional and behavioral capacities were established than their younger counterparts, do not have many of the skills that adults and relevant to the legal decision making and criminal responsibility (Otto and Borum, 2004) demonstrators. As a result, the juvenile court was to consider the criminal behavior of minors in context of development, with a greater emphasis on rehabilitation and decreased attention on the punishment (Zimring, 2000). Since the juvenile court was to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, the dramatic changes in the landscape of juvenile justice in 1966 and 1967, changing forever the denial of constitutional guarantees for minors. In its decisions in Kent v. United States (1966) and In re Gault (1967), the Supreme Court of the United States asked if the ideal rehabilitation of the
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.
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
According to Donna M. Bishop( 2003) of the University of Chicago criminal justice system “Transfer of juvenile defendants to criminal courts for adult prosecution has traditionally been justified on the grounds that the juvenile court is ill equipped to handle two classes of offenders. In cases of seriously violent crimes, the public has historically demanded heavy penalties that exceed the authority of the juvenile court (Tanenhaus, forthcoming). While commission of a repugnant act neither transforms a young o...