The alternative to determinate sentencing is blended sentencing, which allows judges to issue delinquent offenders both juvenile and adult dispositions. Depending on the behavior of the delinquent while serving out their juvenile sentence, a fail-safe postadjudication stage occurs to determine whether or not their adult sentence should be suspended or invoked (Belshaw et al, 2011). I personally do support utilizing the determinate sentencing for these offenders and believe that it would fail the criminal justice system not to utilize them. This is considered a heinous crime and they should not be shown leniency. At the age of 12-14, the juveniles know that murder is wrong, and the fact that this young man had to lose his life at the age of 19 over an IPOD is atrocious.
According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “was the crime committed” to “why did the child commit the crime”, “how can we help the child”. 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 Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. In this paper I am going to discuss the three primary mechanisms of waiver to adult court: judicial waiver laws, statutory exclusion laws, and prosecutorial discretion or concurrent jurisdiction laws.
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... ... middle of paper ... ... Critical Next Steps in Assessing the Impact of Laws for transferring Juveniles to the Criminal Justice System. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 1(2), 156-169.
In the spirit of ensuring that trials against children were handled in a speedy and in a confidential manner, children below fourteen years were tried immediately before two magistrates (19th Century Bedford Gaol). These early ref... ... middle of paper ... ... been recognized as criminal proceedings. The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment prohibits the state from trying an offender as juvenile and later as an adult for the same crime. Works Cited Einstein law, (2008). Lawyershop.com.
Two Supreme Court cases have addressed the issue of juvenile waivers and transfers, Kent v. United States and Breed v. Jones. The two cases resulted in specific requirements for transfer hearings, including a) a legitimate transfer hearing b) sufficient notice to family and defense attorney c) right to counsel d) a statement regarding reason for the transfer. However, the waiver of juveniles is often criticized by experts for various reasons. "Minors are likely to be looked upon as special persons by prosecutors, probation officers, and judges in the criminal courts. They are younger than the main population of defendants before the criminal courts…while a minor may be looked upon as a hardened criminal in the juvenile court, (s)he may be viewed as a mere innocent youngster in criminal court."
953, 1009–10. Bishop, Donna and Frazier, Charles, et al., (1996). “The Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court: Does It Make a Difference?” 42(2) Crime and Delinquency 171 (1996)
393-401 Staniels, J. (1995) Grading Culpability at Sentencing: The Example of Sentencing Entrapment: Federal Sentencing Reporter Vol. 7, No. 4, Criminal Law Defenses at Sentencing pp. 178-180 Steinberg, L & Scott, E.(2003) Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty.
Behind all of the controversy that this issue raises lies a different group of people that are not so often brought into the lime light, juveniles. This proposes a problem entangled with another; if we do decide to carry out death sentences, what is the minimum age limit? Can we electrocute, lethally inject, or gas any one who commits a crime that is considered capital? In this paper the issue of capital punishment for juveniles will be discussed, basically laying out a comprehensive look at the matter. First we will briefly look at the history of both juvenile justice and the history of the death penalty in regards to juveniles.
“Should the Law Treat Kids and Adults differently” TIME May 17, 2001. 2013. Sadler, A.E. Juvenile Crime Opposing Views. San Diego : Greenhaven Press INC, 2002.
Should we tried juveniles as adults if the criminal act is severe enough? What impact does it have on the juveniles? Would juveniles being tried as adults than being tried as juveniles yield a better outcome? Is there a benefit from juveniles being tried as adults? Controversy arose in 1998, about the definition of who was considered as a minor or an adult or what the average appropriate behavior was (Brown, M. (1998).