The Nigeria Juvenile Justice System is the country that I chose to focus on while presenting my term paper. In this paper, I will discuss six main points to give an overview of how Nigeria disciplines juveniles in their country: the country’s juvenile justice system, when their system started, the laws protecting the children 's programs for juveniles who are in conflict with the law, the sanctions for juveniles and recommendation of how juveniles should be treated in that country. When discussing each part of this paper, I tried to get as much as information as possible to highlight Nigeria’s Juvenile Justice System. There is a lot of information that is different than the United States and I feel as if youth have a tendency to take advantage …show more content…
“Juvenile justice administration in Nigeria suffers from several inadequacies: legal, policy, planning, implementation, education and research” (Alemika & Chukwuma, 2001). The Juvenile Justice System in Nigeria was guided by the British so it is difficult to ignore or understand without knowing the colonial’s past. When the criminal justice was started it was to deter and punish offenders for disobeying the interest of the colonists. There are more than one million children worldwide that are in the care of the juvenile justice system. There are many individuals and groups that make up the criminal justice system, such as police officers, courts and prisons who are the pillars the Nigerian criminal justice system. When thinking in terms of the juvenile justice system, it is just the integral part of the criminal justice system. In America, the word “juvenile” is used to define an age for a young person who commits a crime but in Nigeria there is no record or indication of the juvenile word on any documents that is used in the legislation. There are many ways that a child is classified in the criminal justice system in Nigeria. It is not based on age limit, but more of the responsibility and the circumstances of the …show more content…
Its stated purpose is "to make provision for the welfare of the young and the treatment of young offenders and for the establishment of juvenile courts.” (Okagbue, 2000). In Nigeria, there is no legal definition when defining if a child or group of children is alleged to have minor criminal activity. In the cases that it is not reported to the police, it usually directed at family members and neighbors. There are some cases such as truancy and running away from home that are handled by the juvenile court. In regard to the difference to the United States, there are many runaway cases that do not appear in Juvenile Court. Nigeria has not adopted certain for criminal responsibility. However, they have adopted various age demarcations under responsibility or the circumstances of the offense. “Thus, a child below the age of 7 is not criminally responsible for any act or omission. A child between the ages of 7-12 wills not, normally he held responsible for his actions unless it can be proved that at the time of committing the offense, he had the capacity to know that he ought not to do it.” (Okagbue, 2000). A male child under the age of 12 is always assumed to be incapable of having carnal knowledge and therefore cannot be held responsible for offenses requiring that element. “A child above 12 is fully responsible for his actions;
Vito, Gennaro F., and Clifford E. Simonsen. Juvenile justice today. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.
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 Youth Criminal Justice Act, often called by the name of YCJA, is specifically made for youths ages varying from 12 to 17 that disobey the law. In April 1, 2003, the YCJA replaced the previous justice act called Young Offenders Act due to several negative concerns. “These concerns included the overuse of the courts and incarceration in less serious cases, disparity and unfairness in sentencing, a lack of effective reintegration of young people released from custody, and the need to better take into account the interests of victims.” The main purpose of the YCJA aims to have a fairer and more equitable system. Although the YCJA is an effective law within the justice system, a main aspect/characteristic that needs to remain, is keeping the
The purpose of the criminal law is to balance of rights for individuals in society to achieve justice. The criminal law is continually reforming in an attempt to achieve justice for young offenders, as it is an issue of the criminal law. This essay will examine the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in relation to young offenders therefore looking at various aspects of the juvenile justice system. The criminal justice system does provide some effective and relevant concessions for young offenders. However, due to its focus on incarceration and punishment rather than on preventative measures, the criminal justice system is effective to an extent
The problem of dealing with juvenile justice has plagued are country for years, since the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899. Prior to that development, delinquent juveniles had to be processed through the adult justic3e system which gave much harsher penalties. By 1945, separate juvenile courts existed in every single state. Similar to the adult system, all through most of the 20th century, the juvenile justice system was based upon a medical/rehabilitative representation. The new challenges of the juvenile court were to examine, analyze, and recommend treatment for offenders, not to deliver judgment fault or fix responsibility. The court ran under the policy of “parens patriae” that intended that the state would step in and act as a parent on behalf of a disobedient juvenile. Actions were informal and a juvenile court judge had a vast sum of discretion in the nature of juvenile cases, much like the discretion afforded judges in adult unlawful settings until the 1970s. In line with the early juvenile court’s attitude of shielding youth, juvenile offenders’ position was often in reformatories or instruction schools that were intended, in speculation, to keep them away from the terrible influences of society and to encourage self-control through accurate structure and very unsympathetic discipline. Opposing to the fundamental theory, all through the first part of the century, the places that housed juveniles were frequently unsafe and unhealthy places where the state warehoused delinquent, deserted, and deserted children for unclear periods. Ordinary tribulations included lack of medical care, therapy programs, and even sometimes food. Some very poor circumstances continue even today.
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
Though crime, in general, is on the decline there are specific crimes and group offenders that are actually increasing. Specific crimes such as hate crimes, those crimes motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group, based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation, and juvenile crimes have become escalating debates. Lionel Tate, a 12-year-old boy at the time of his actions, is a suitable case to investigate. Using his case, I will address the increase in juvenile delinquency, the contributions to the malice acts, the severity of the crimes being committed by youth, and possible, yet reasonable repercussions.
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.
Vandergoot concludes “the goals of the youth legislation…its major objectives are reducing the use of incarceration for young offenders…the YCJA emphasizes restraint, accountability, proportionality, and discretion… it encourages use of extra judicial measures” ( Vandergoot, 2006, p30). Vandergoot determines that the objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is in the interest of youth, however, she accounts for the long term effect on adolescence as well. Vandergoot concludes the emotional and social consequences as youth interact with the system. Vandergoot claims the system leaves juveniles “debased”, suffering an “assault on their self-image”, that “block or snares in the adolescent psyche”, ultimately lowering their motivation and self-esteem which advances youth to have the “they think I’m bad I’ll show them I’m bad” mentality(Vandergoot, 2006). The mentality that derives from direct encounters with the youth justice system, often damages the adolescence completely disregarding the purpose of a youth justice system.
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...
Cox, S. M., Allen, J. M., Hanser, R. D., & Conrad, J. J. (2014). Juvenile Justice A Guide to Theory, Policy and Practice (8th ed.). Sage publications Inc.
A deep look into juveniles in adult prisons. Touch bases on several smaller issues that contribute to juveniles being in and effects of adult prisons. The United States Bureau of Prisons handles two hundred and thirty-nine juveniles and their average age is seventeen. Execution of juveniles, The United States is one of only six countries to execute juveniles. There are sixty-eight juveniles sitting on death row for crimes committed as juveniles. Forty-three of those inmates are minorities. People, who are too young to vote, drink alcohol, or drive are held to the same standard of responsibility as adults. In prisons, they argue that the juveniles become targets of older, more hardened criminals. Brian Stevenson, Director of the Alabama Capital Resource Center said, “We have totally given up in the idea of reform of rehabilitation for the very young. We are basically saying we will throw those kids away. Leading To Prison Juvenile Justice Bulletin Report shows that two-thirds of juveniles apprehended for violent offenses were released or put on probation. Only slightly more than one-third of youths charged with homicide was transferred to adult criminal court. Little more than one out of every one hundred New York youths arrested for muggings, beatings, rape and murder ended up in a correctional institution. Another report showed a delinquent boy has to be arrested on average thirteen times before the court will act more restrictive than probation. Laws began changing as early as 1978 in New York to try juveniles over 12 who commit violent crimes as adults did. However, even since the laws changed only twenty percent of serious offenders served any time. The decision of whether to waive a juven...
Youth and juvenile crime is a common and serious issue in current society, and people, especially parents and educators, are pretty worried about the trend of this problem. According to Bala and Roberts, around 17% of criminals were youths, compared to 8% of Canadian population ranging between 12 to 18 years of age between 2003 and 2004 (2006, p37). As a big federal country, Canada has taken a series of actions since 1908. So far, there are three justice acts in the history of Canadian juvenile justice system, the 1908 Juvenile Delinquents Act, the 1982 Young Offenders Act, and the 2003 Youth Criminal Justice Act. In Canada, the judicial system and the principle of these laws have been debated for a long time. This paper will discuss how these three laws were defined and why one was replaced by another.
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...
The United States has been affected by a number of crimes committed by juveniles. The juvenile crime rate has been increasing in recent years. Every day more juveniles commit crimes for various reasons. They act as adults when they are not officially adults. There is a discussion about how juveniles should be punished if they commit heinous crimes.