The process of transferring juveniles to adult courts has shown no effects on decreasing recidivism or a deterrent outcome. Waiver as it is known has three means by which a juvenile can be transferred to an adult court. Judicial waiver offenses, statutory exclusions, and concurrent jurisdiction are the three methods in which a waiver can occur. This research will describe each one of these methods with detail. It will also provide statistical facts showing why waiver can be a very debatable topic within the juvenile criminal justice system. In its totality it will discuss the arguments for and against waiver. The age of the offender determines whether they meet the requirements for a judicial waiver offense. With that said not every state offers all three of the methods a juvenile can qualify for a waiver. In the process of judicial waiver offense the judge takes the final decision on waiving a case. There are other factors that affect the judge’s final decision. Aspects like the criminal history of the offender or the severity of the crime are crucial for the waiver to take place. Statutory Exclusion is when certain offenses are barred. By 1997, 28 states had statutory exclusions (Juvenile "waiver" (transfer to adult court)). Offenses commonly excluded are first degree murder, or any other felony. Similar to Judicial waiver age too play an important role in determining if the juvenile offender can be tried as an adult. In this mechanism it is not the judge who decides but the prosecutor. Once the prosecutor has made the decision to charge a juvenile with an excluded offense, the case must be filed in criminal court (Statutory Exclusion, 2008). A more complex method of waiver is the concurrent jurisdictio... ... middle of paper ... ...Like Adults Make a Difference?: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh Juvenile Justice Reforms in the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2011, from Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Courts: http://www.ojjdp.gov Males, M. and D. Macallair (2000). “ The Color of Justice: An Analysis of Juvenile Justice Adult Court Transfers in California.” Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, January. Olson, J. K. (2005, May). Waiver of Juvniles To Criminal Courts. Retrieved September 20, 2011, from Judicial Discretion and Racial Disparity: http://www.cjcj.org/files/waiver_of.pdf Reverse Waiver. (1998, December). Retrieved September 20, 2011, from Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Courts: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/tryingjuvasadult/transfer4.html Statutory Exclusion. (2008, December). Retrieved September 2011, from http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/tryingjuvasadult/transfer3.html
A juvenile waiver is when a judge abandons the protections that juvenile courts provide, and transfers a case from juvenile court to adult court. “Usually, juvenile cases that are subject to waiver involve more serious crimes or minors who have been in trouble before” (Michon, n.d., para. 1). There are currently three main types of waivers. First, judicial waiver is the one most common and widely used. Typically, a judge will make the decision of whether a judicial waiver to adult court is required. Judicial waivers include examining the juvenile’s age, offense, maturity level, and relationship with parents, to name a few (OJJDP, 1997). Second, prosecutorial discretion waivers states, “Jurisdiction for certain cases is
Bartollas, Clemens and Miller, Stuart J. (2014). Juvenile justice in america (7 ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, 58-60.
juvenile justice” (Elrod & Ryder, 2011) is to detour juvenile crimes and not be so easy on
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.
Waiver varies from jurisdiction, however, is common to find judicial waiver legislative offense exclusion and prosecutorial discretion. A judicial waiver occurs when a juvenile court judge transfers a case from juvenile to adult court, after conducting a hearing to determine whether a juvenile is amenable to treatment or poses danger to the community, in order to deny the juvenile the protections that juvenile jurisdictions provide. There is a two prong approach to waiver: dispositional (amenability) phase and adjudicating phase. Phase 1 is a hearing to determine probable cause and Phase 2 is to determine whether the best interest of the public and the juvenile would be served by waiving jurisdiction of the juvenile to the adult court. (kent)
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.
Lanza-Kaduce, L., Frazier, C.E., Bishop, D.M., (2002). Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court Study: Final Report. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Prison Policy Initiative, 8 January 2002.
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
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
for youngsters who have a long history of convictions for less serious felonies for which the juvenile court disposition has not been effective” (qtd. in Katel).
In juvenile court, the judge must decide if the teen gets tried as an adult or minor. If the juvenile gets sent to a juvenile detention center for murder they will live their lives there until they are twenty one, but if tried as an adult they will serve so many years in prison. There is a grey area of law for certain teens that commit serious crimes. In this case of the grey law, each state gets to decide upon the particular state how they person is tried. For most cases pertaining to the juvenile courts are case by case bases. Many believe that it isn’t fair for the teens to be locked up with adults. The U.S. House of Representatives made the Juvenile Justice Act encouraging states to find alternatives to having the teens go through such a process with people much older than themselves (Locked Up…).
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
June/July 21-26. Eldelfonso, Edward. A. Law Enforcement and the Youth offenders: Juvenile Procedures. New York: Wiley, 1967. Hyde, Margaret O. & Co.
When a juvenile commits a serious crime the juvenile falls under a series of categories regarding the specific transfer laws to adult court. According to the National Conference of State Legislature twenty states currently, have statutory exclusion which indicates that
Criminal and Juvenile system can be complex for many people who do not understand how the system can work. Juvenile Justice would be concentered an important aspect to the American system. The system is in place to ensure or deter delinquencies from entering the adult structure. This paper examines the criminal justice system throughout history, juvenile versus criminal system, transition from juvenile to criminal justice, and the effectiveness of the justice system.