Rights of Juvenile Delinquency couldn’t be as fair as it is today without the efforts made by reformers throughout history. During the late 18th and early century youths committing crimes has little to no rights given. Children as young as 7 years old can be put and trialed as an adult even have a chance with the death penalty. These punishments where so outrageous that even if you spoke against your parents’ wishes you will be put in jail. Something needed to be done about these cruel treatments for a child at such a young age who may or may not know right from wrong. The victims had the questions, the government had both the power and most importantly the resolution. It was not only the right but also the responsibility for the people who did not agree with dangerous problem to change everything around. American cities were beginning to reach high rates of child poverty and neglect and by that rising city leaders had to find a way for the problem to disappear. This took Reformers like Thomas Eddy, Alexander Maconochie, John Augustus, and many Supreme Court cases for everything to fall into its rightful place.
Reformers did not agree with harsh treatment that the children were witnessing, they urged to court system to establish a separate system for the Juveniles. Many people like Alexander M believed that children should be helped rather than be punished as an adult. On February 11 1787 in Edinburgh, Scotland .He became part of the Royal Navy in 1803 and was a prisoner of war from 1811 to 1814.In 1836 as private secretary to the Lieutenant Governor Sir John Franklin he wrote an article against the states’ prison principles. Maconochie was a spiritual man, of unselfish and sympathetic mentality and convinced of the dignity of a ...
... middle of paper ...
...nd convicted in adult Court where was sentenced to death. Thompson’s lawyers appealed to this court decision. However, the state appeal did not change this appeal by arguing that imposing the death sentence was in fact in violation of the 8th Amendment protection against “cruel and unusual punishment,” because of this ruling this case was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court. A vote of 5-3 helped overturn Thompson’s death sentence .The writer of the majority named Justice John Paul Stevens declared that “Civilized standards of decency “prohibited the death penalty for a person who was under the age of 16 years old at the time of his or her crime. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented. He wrote, "There is no rational basis for discerning in that a societal judgment that no one so much as a day under 16 can ever be mature and morally responsible enough to deserve that penalty…."
The adult system’s shifts leaked into the juvenile system, causing an increase in incarcerations even when delinquency rates were declining at the time. Juvenile reform legislations prompted more compulsory sentencing and more determinate sentences for juveniles, lowering of the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction, considerable ease in obtaining waivers to adult court for juvenile prosecution, and made it easier to gain access to juvenile records as well. Furthermore, it led to greater preoccupation with chronic, violent offenders, which in turn led to a redirection of resources for their confinement. Thereby, the absence of reliable criteria for identifying such offenders tends to stereotype all delinquents and is more likely to raise the level of precautionary confinements. These three major shifts in juvenile justice policy demonstrate the power and depth of traditional beliefs about the causes and cures of crimes in U.S. society. It also shows how the system can bend for a time in the direction of new approaches to prevention and control. Today, we are presently in a time of conservative responses where the prevailing views about crime express beliefs about prevention, retribution, and incapacitation that are profoundly rooted in our
In the United States Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons of 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in a five to four ruling that the death sentence for minors was considered “cruel and unusual punishment,” as stated by the Eighth Amendment, according to the Oyez Project online database. Christopher Simmons, the plaintiff, was only seventeen at the time of his conviction of murder. With the Roper v Simmons, 2005 Supreme Court ruling against applying the death penalty to minors, this also turned over a previous 1989 ruling of Stanford v. Kentucky that stated the death penalty was permissible for those over the age of sixteen who had committed a capital offense. The Roper v. Simmons is one of those landmark Supreme Court cases that impacted, and changed Simmons had become a landmark case, it quickly brought it into the sight of the public, as well as the legislative branch. With growing public dissent against using foreign law in national cases, Congress even entertained the idea of reprimanding, or revoking, the Supreme Court’s ability to employ international references when it came to such instances (“Debate Over Foreign Law in Roper v. Simmons”).
Studies and anecdotes have shown that our modern approach, however, is ill-equipped to reduce crime or deal with chronic delinquents while at the same time protecting their due liberties. We now stand on the precipice of decision: How can we strike an appropriate balance in the juvenile justice system? Should we even retain a separate system for children at all? The answers are usually difficult, sometimes subtle, but always possible to attain.
Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is entirely eliminating the use of the life without parole sentence for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the crime being charged.
With increased media coverage of violent juvenile behavior, legislators began to pass laws to toughen up on juvenile crime. Many laws made it easier to waive juveniles into adult courts, or even exclude juveniles who had committed serious crimes from juvenile court jurisdiction. Furthermore, the sentences to be handed out for offenders were lengthened and made much more severe. As a result, the juvenile courts began to resemble the adult courts. Yet, this movement’s influence began to fade, and by the turn of the century, another shift had occurred. In the current juvenile courts, a balanced approach is emphasized. While the court deals with chronic and dangerous offenders with a heavy hand, needy youth who need help to get back on track are still assisted under the parens patriae philosophy. Restorative justice has come to be the preferred method of today’s juvenile courts. In an overall sense, the modern juvenile court has taken on a paternalistic view similar to parens patriae towards youths who are in need of guidance, while punitively punishing offenders who do not respond to the helping hand extended to
Mass incarceration has caused the prison’s populations to increase dramatically. The reason for this increase in population is because of the sentencing policies that put a lot of men and women in prison for an unjust amount of time. The prison population has be caused by periods of high crime rates, by the medias assembly line approach to the production of news stories that bend the truth of the crimes, and by political figures preying on citizens fear. For example, this fear can be seen in “Richard Nixon’s famous campaign call for “law and order” spoke to those fears, hostilities, and racist underpinnings” (Mauer pg. 52). This causes law enforcement to focus on crimes that involve violent crimes/offenders. Such as, gang members, drive by shootings, drug dealers, and serial killers. Instead of our law agencies focusing their attention on the fundamental causes of crime. Such as, why these crimes are committed, the family, and preventive services. These agencies choose to fight crime by establishing a “War On Drugs” and with “Get Tough” sentencing policies. These policies include “three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and juvenile waives laws which allows kids to be trialed as adults.
Home Office (1927) Report of the Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Young Offenders, Cmd 2831 (The Molony Report). London: HMSO
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
Before the Progressive Era, children who were over the age of seven were put in jail with adults. In the early part of the 1800’s reformers started to become concerned with the overcrowded environment in the jails and prisons, and the corruption young kids were experiencing when locked up with adult prisoners. 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. They were overwhelmingly convinced that so...
Edward Humes follows the cases of seven teenagers in juvenile court, and those surrounding them. Many people say that the systems first priority should be to protect the public from the juvenile criminals that are a danger to others. Once the juveniles enter the system there is however, arguments on what should be done with them. Especially for those deemed too dangerous to be released back to their parents.
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.
As discussed in depth, there are all types of crimes that are committed by young offenders these days and the offenders possess a number of different characteristics. There have been many theoretical crime explanations that have been formed over the years that attempt to explain the reasoning behind the question of why certain individuals, both young and old, are more prone to commit crimes. The discussion of punishment practices are also important because it displays the many approaches that have been taken to ensure that juvenile delinquents are being treated fairly, but punished and rehabilitated all simultaneously. Many methods fall under this kind of approach referred to as the restorative justice approach such as neighborhood conference committees, victim impact panels, sentencing circles, and community impact panels which all attempt to rehabilitate the offender, but also to involve members of society including the victims/survivors of crimes (Siegel, 2009). It is believed and hoped with the continuation of processes, practices, and programs in place such as these that juvenile crime will eventually decrease bringing more order to our society as a whole. Overall, this paper strives to bring awareness to juvenile delinquency by
... rape or treason was committed ("8th Amendment to the Constitution – U.S. Amendment VIII Summary"). However, there are some cases where the death penalty is unacceptable regardless of the crime. In the Supreme Court case of Roper v Simmons the court decided that the execution of someone for a crime they committed when they were a minor violated the eighth amendment . The court case of Atkins v Virginia established that the death penalty is not an acceptable punishment for mentally ill felons (Lemieux, "The Supreme Court's Empty Eighth Amendment Promise"). The Supreme Court has also ruled that executing anyone under the age of 18 is an act of cruel and unusual punishment ("8th Amendment to the Constitution – U.S. Amendment VIII Summary"). The death penalty is the worst punishment a person could get, and because of that there are many restrictions on when to use it.
Juvenile delinquency is committing criminal acts or offenses by a young person, generally involving people under the age of eighteen. That is what this research proposal is about. For my research proposal my research question is what can cause or deter juvenile delinquency in first time offenders? I feel that this is an important question to be asking, because in our society there is too much juvenile delinquency and if we can use this research to figure out what can cause and deter this phenomenon then we could sincerely help a lot of adolescents.
Juvenile delinquency is one of the major social issues in the United States today. Juvenile delinquency, also known as juvenile offending, is when “a violation of the law committed by a juvenile and not punishable by death or life imprisonment” (Merriam-webster.com). Although we have one justice system in America, the juvenile system differs from the adult juvenile system. Most juvenile delinquents range from as low as the age of seven to the age of seventeen. Once the delinquent or anyone turns the age of eighteen, they are considered an adult. Therefore, they are tried as an adult, in the justice system. There are many different reasons why a child would commit crime, such as mental and physical factors, home conditions, neighborhood environment and school conditions. In addition, there are a variety of effects that juvenile justice systems can either bad effects or good effects. Finally there are many different solutions that can reduce juvenile delinquency. As a result, juvenile delinquency is a major issue and the likeliness of it can be reduced. In order to reduce juvenile delinquency there has to be an understanding of the causes and the effects.