The juvenile delinquency term has come to imply disgrace in today's society. An underage offender can be labeled a delinquent for breaking any number of laws, ranging from robbery to running away from home. To help better understand the rights that a juvenile is entitled to, the following situations faced by the criminal justice system when dealing with juvenile detainees will be examined. The two main areas of discussion include; juvenile’s rights at time of arrest and additional protections afforded to the juvenile. These areas will be briefly analyzed to give adequate explanation of the issue and whether additional protections serve the purposes of criminal and social justice.
Law enforcement officials have a very important task when dealing with the rights of a juvenile at the time of arrest. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges recommend that a script be used by the judges to ensure that the due process rights of the juvenile are maintained (Bartollas and Miller, 2008, P.141). When the custody of a juvenile takes place all procedures must be followed in accordance with the state law. If procedures are not followed at the time of arrest, the case could potentially bring legal actions against law enforcement and juvenile court officials. Law enforcement officials may use discretion upon arrest of those offenders who commit serious crimes and can also ignore many lesser offenses committed by juveniles. As noted by Bartollas and Miller, “After adjudication, a youth is place in juvenile detention or moved out of detention and into probation, residential placement, or the adult system, and then released” (2008, P. 18). Other options exist in determining what to do with the juvenile, but in more serious cases, t...
... middle of paper ...
...urther actions by the judge. Additional protections afforded to the juvenile emphasize procedures that must be granted in court. Ultimately, the goal of the due process procedures should be geared towards helping the juvenile refrain from the criminal justice system. We can all agree that juvenile delinquents should be punished for their criminal behavior and be held responsible in accordance with the law, but the protection of their legal rights must not be taken from them.
Works Cited
Baker, F (1991). Saving Our Kids. New York: Cornelia and Michael Bessie Books.
Bartollas, C. & Miller, S. (2008). Juvenile justice in America (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
Seiter, R. P. (2008). Corrections: An Introduction. (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Worrall, J.L. (2008). Crime Control in America. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
The Court ruled for the juvenile, stating that his rights to due process were indeed violated according to the Fourteenth Amendment. “The proceedings of the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Oyez, n.d.). The Court analyzed the juvenile court's method of handling cases, verifying that, while there are good reasons behind handling juveniles in a different way from adults, adolescents seeking to settling delinquency and detainment cases are qualified for certain procedural safeguards under the Due Process Act of the Fourteenth
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.
Bartollas, Clemens and Miller, Stuart J. (2014). Juvenile justice in america (7 ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, 58-60.
This quote by Edward Humes sums it up the best, “The fundamental question Juvenile Court was designed to ask - What's the best way to deal with this individual kid? - is often lost in the process, replaced by a point system that opens the door, or locks it, depending on the qualities of the crime, not the child.” (No Matter How Loud I shout, 1996, p. 325). The courts need to focus on what is best for the child and finding punishment that fits the child not the crime.
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.
Police officers have a great amount of discretion. Since they are not always supervised and on patrol they choose which cases should be process and which one should just be not. Police discretion is the most important part because it determines the outcomes of the interaction between the police and the juvenile. Krisberg and Austin noted that police have five basic options in deciding what course of action to pursue with juveniles. The first one would be release, accompanied by a warning to the juvenile. The second one would be release, accompanied by an official report. The third one would be Station adjustment. Which include release to parent accompanied by an official reprimand, referral to a community youth agency, or referral to a public or private social welfare or mental health agency. Fourth would be Referral to juvenile court without detention and last referral to the juvenile court with detention.
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.
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.
The rehabilitation model and parens patriae failed to prevent delinquency, and so the courts began to shift their methods to suit the times. The Supreme Court handed down a series of decisions in the 1960s and 1970s providing due process rights to juveniles. Some of the rights involved included right to counsel, a right to confront witnesses, and a notice of charges. Congress also took action during this time period, passing the JJDP Act in 1974. This law granted funding to juvenile justice programs, and enforced deinstitutionalization of status offenders and non-offenders, mandating that delinquents not be held with adult
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.
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...
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.
Introduction: Recidivism or, habitual relapses into crime, has time and time again proven to be an issue among delinquents, which thereby increases the overall juvenile prison population. This issue has become more prevalent than what we realize. Unless a unit for measuring a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is enacted and used to determine a system to promote effective prevention, than the juvenile prison population will continue to increase. Our court system should not only focus on punishing the said juvenile but also enforce a program or policy that will allow for prevention of recidivism. So the question remains, how can recidivism in the juvenile prison population be prevented so that it is no longer the central cause for increased juvenile delinquency? Simply put, we must create a means of measuring juvenile’s level of risk and in turn, form an effective rehabilitation program that will decrease their risk level for future recidivism.
June/July 21-26. Eldelfonso, Edward. A. Law Enforcement and the Youth offenders: Juvenile Procedures. New York: Wiley, 1967. Hyde, Margaret O. & Co.
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.