Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The main roles and responsabilities of the juvenile justice system paper
Criminal justice system and juveniles
The effectiveness of the juvenile court
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. Furthermore, I will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each type of mechanism that waives juveniles over to the adult court system. Finally, I will conclude by discussing the different mechanisms and how effective they are in relation to the principles and ideals that the juvenile justice system represent.
According to Griffin (2008) ever since the beginning the juvenile court system judges were able to designate cases that met certain criteria to criminal court. This process is described as the “jurisdictional transfer”. According to Griffin, Addie, Adams, and Firestine (2011) jurisdictional transfer laws drastically differ on a state by state basis. Griffin (2008) stated that all of the laws fall into one of the three primary mechanisms for transfer to adult court: judicial waiver laws, statutory exclusion laws, and prosecutorial discretion or concurrent jurisdiction laws. Kupchik (2006) stated tha...
... middle of paper ...
... Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 51(5), 493-511.
Fagan, J. (2008) Juvenile Crime and Criminal Justice: Resolving Border Disputes. The Future of
Children 18(2) 81-116.
Griffin, P. (2008) Different from Adults: An Updated Analysis of Juvenile Transfer and Blended
Sentencing Laws, with Recommendations for Reform. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Griffin, P., Addie, S., Adams, B., & Firestine, K. Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2011). Trying juveniles as adults: An analysis of state transfer laws and reporting (NCJ 232434). Retrieved from website: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/232434.pdf
Kupchik, A. (2006) Judging Juveniles: Prosecuting Adolescents in Adult and Juvenile Courts.
New York: NYU Press.
Mack, J. (1909) The Juvenile Court. Harvard Law Review 23(2), 104-122.
The Juvenile Justice system, since its conception over a century ago, has been one at conflict with itself. Originally conceived as a fatherly entity intervening into the lives of the troubled urban youths, it has since been transformed into a rigid and adversarial arena restrained by the demands of personal liberty and due process. The nature of a juvenile's experience within the juvenile justice system has come almost full circle from being treated as an adult, then as an unaccountable child, now almost as an adult once more.
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
Over the last decade, many state legislatures have offered better options and procedures for handling delinquent juveniles. Many states have also extended their juvenile codes for not only the welfare of the child, but for the safety of the community and the protection of the rights of the victim(s). Moreover, many states have also amended their transfer qualifications so that only the most serious of crimes are tried in adult court. As a result, the competency requirement and the insanity defense have gained renewed importance.
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.
Vandergoot determines that the reasoning capacity of an adolescent, the ability to make legal decisions, and filter unnecessary information is unclear to a juvenile in the justice system; the vagueness of youth stepping into the courts prevents them from fully participating in the justice system. ( Vandergoot, 2006). As a result of this impreciseness youth encounter Vandergoot concludes a separate justice system allocated for youth to adhere to adolescent needs. Vandergoot discusses the Youth Criminal Justice Act a justice system devised to adhere to youth needs. She summarizes the system that benefits young offenders in contrast to adult offenders.
Another study seeking to establish effective deterrence to delinquency found out that most states transfer youths aged fourteen years and above, who have committed serious violent offenses to adult court systems. Many of the states apply the th...
The book “No Matter How Loud I Shout” written by Edward Humes, looks at numerous major conflicts within the juvenile court system. There is a need for the juvenile system to rehabilitate the children away from their lives of crime, but it also needs to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous of its juveniles, causing one primary conflict. Further conflict arises with how the court is able to administer proper treatment or punishment and the rights of the child too due process. The final key issue is between those that call for a complete overhaul of the system, and the others who think it should just be taken apart. On both sides there is strong reasoning that supports each of their views, causing a lot of debate about the juvenile court system. Edward Humes follows the cases of seven teenagers in juvenile court, and those surrounding them.
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...
Guilty! As the gavel hits the sound block, everyone is amazed at the verdict. This teenage boy is sentenced to a life in prison without parole. As you read this in newspapers, magazines, and even online, what goes through your head? You may be thinking, “Why is this teen being tried as adult, he is just a kid?” While he is “just a kid”, and this is a widely held opinion, but it is not mine. Should minors who commit violent crimes be tried as adults? Absolutely. Just because minors are young they do have the ability to know what is right from wrong. Since these minors have committed the crime, they need to be held accountable. If a minor has acted as an adult, they need to be treated like adults. Lastly, minors need to know that their actions have consequences, no matter what age.
Rehabilitative treatment has not always been seen as a right for juveniles. It hasn’t even been regarded as the best possible course of action for dealing with juveniles. This paper will explore the history of the juvenile system, define what rehabilitation is, and explore the balance between the benefits of rehabilitation and the interest of public safety.
There has always been controversies as to whether juvenile criminals should be tried as adults or not. Over the years more and more teenagers have been involved in committing crimes. In some cases the juries have been too rough on the teens. Trying teens as adults can have a both positive and negative views. For example, teens that are detained can provide information about other crimes, can have an impact in social conditions, and serve as experience; however, it can be negative because teens are still not mature enough for that experience, they are exposed to adult criminals; and they will lose out on getting an education.
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).
There has always been alarm and despair over escalating juvenile crime. In the 1950s there were reports about the mushrooming problems with youthful gangs in the big cities. In the 1960s we began to hear about a surge of juvenile crime in areas that had been regarded as virtually crime free. In the suburbs as well as the inner cities, youngsters were dropping out of school, using drugs and committing crimes. In the 1970s and 1980s, juvenile court dockets became increasingly jammed with criminal cases. According to the Department of Justice, the percentage increases in arrests from 1985 to 1994 have been greater for juveniles than for adults. During 1994 alone, 2.7 million juveniles were arrested. During the latter part of this century, juvenile courts that customarily provided social services in order to rehabilitate rather than punish lawbreakers were faced with an onslaught of children who were not simply wayward youths, but hardened repeat offenders. The 1980s witnessed an increasingly desperate outcry for courts to take more extreme measures to contain juvenile crime, which is assuming ever more serious forms.
June/July 21-26. Eldelfonso, Edward. A. Law Enforcement and the Youth offenders: Juvenile Procedures. New York: Wiley, 1967. Hyde, Margaret O. & Co.