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 ultimate goal of the jurisdiction of the Missouri Courts and the practices discussed in the readings was to decrease the amount of juvenile crime that has been taking place. The jurisdiction of the Missouri courts to hear juvenile cases presumes adolescence “seventeen years of age or younger dealing with guardianship, delinquency, abuse/neglect and protection” (Missouri Revised Statues, 2015). Under the Convention of the Rights for Children, there are articles in which children have the rights to “protection, parental guidance, freedom of expression, right to education, and juvenile justice” (UNICEF). When these rights are violated or non-existent conflict arises in young and older adolescence. They break laws, get anger, and refuse authority
Through the establishment of Juvenile Courts which were criminal courts in terms of the procedures and giving them jurisdiction over the care and protection issues. The Juvenile Courts became the family law courts which dispensed family justice. The courts and the state can intervene for the first time in working-class family life when children are seen to be immoral, conditions which were regarded as neglect included: truancy, begging, being beyond control etc... Molony Committee The Mol... ... middle of paper ... ...llows the authorities to tackle their delinquent behaviour but to also seek to reform their personality and way of life inside an institutionalized setting in which thorough discipline was imposed and which then imitated the harsh conditions of industrial employment. Works Cited Brown, S. (2005) Understanding Youth and Crime: Listening to Youth. England: Open University Press Hendrick, H. (2006) ‘Histories of Youth Crime and Justice’, In B. Goldson and J. Muncie (eds) Youth Crime and Justice.
The risk agenda shall also be explored which is a risk m... ... middle of paper ... ...(Maguire, 2002). To conclude, I think that parents can be held responsible for the anti-social and criminal behaviour of their children to a certain degree but it must be remembered that children have their own minds once they have learnt right from wrong. I have looked at many theories including control theory and attachment theory and views from Carpenter and McCord as well as others. Bibliography Internet University of California (2004) The Development of Informal Reformatory Sentences for Juvenile Offenders in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/csls/King%20paper.pdf Books Clutterbuck, R (1998) Families, Drugs and Crime. London: Macmillan Press Ltd Maguire, Muncie & Reiner (2002) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology.
The Progressives in the late nineteenth century started to push for universal reform in the criminal justice system (Myers, 2008). The Progressives looked to move away from the penalizing aspect and more towards a rehabilitative system, with regard to the rectification of delinquent children and adolescents. A specific group of Progressives, called the "child savers," focused the majority of their attention on finding and curing the causes of juvenile delinquent behavior. The child savers group viewed the juvenile offenders as adolescents in need of care and direction, not punishment (Myers, 2008). In In re Gault (1967), Justice Fortas summed up the views of the child savers: “The early reformers were horrified by adult procedures and penalties, and by the fact that children could be given long prison sentences and thrown in jails with toughened criminals.
The first juvenile court was established in Illinois in 1899. In the late 18th century children as young as seven could stand trial in criminal court and could be sentenced to prison or death. The perception of children was later changed and they were viewed as persons with undeveloped moral and cognitive capacities. This allowed the state of Illinois to intervene in the lives of children providing protection and care or supervision. The mission to help children in trouble was clearly stated in the laws that established juvenile courts.
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.
The first group of penalties assigned to juvenile delinquents by the court is incarceration. Incarceration is “the act of incarcerating, or putting in prison or another enclosure” (dictionary.reference.com). There are many different incarcerating dispositions including; house arrest, juvenile hall facilities, group or foster home, and adult jail. First, house arrest is an order given to the juvenile that only allows the delinquent to go to work or school depending on the judge’s decision. Second, incarceration sentence type is juvenile hall/detention facilities.
However, responsibility is divided between the state judicial and state executive branches (Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice). Juvenile delinquency is behavior that if committed by an adult would constitute a crime or disorderly persons offense (Neubauer, 446). Every state has their own definition of adolescent offenders and decided in different ways how they should treat them. Under both California and New Jersey laws children are considered minors until the age of eighteen. In both N.J. ... ... middle of paper ... ...t neither they nor society are best served by treating young children like adults.
Understanding children’s mental and emotional development is crucial for developing an effective system of adjudicating and rehabilitating the offender. DJS.state.md.us finds that, in the nineteenth century trying youths separately from their adult counterparts became an apparent necessity. Social reformer’s attempts noted that sentencing a child in adult (criminal) court could yield a worse fate for the child than if the court took an alternate tack. Prior to 1899, when the initial juvenile court was founded, a young delinquent was treated as an adult regardless of their untested decision-making abilities. “The primary difference between juvenile courts and adult courts was that the juvenile courts were ‘civil’ in nature while adult courts were ‘criminal’.” (djs.state.md.us) Rehabilitative procedures remained steady until the 1980s when juvenile crime made a violent upsurge, instigating public opinion to deviate from genteel practices.