Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Prosecuting juveniles as adults
Juvenile court system
Prosecuting juveniles as adults
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Prosecuting juveniles as adults
“Palm Beach County, Fla. -- On May 26, 2000, 13-year-old Nathaniel Brazill shot his teacher, Barry Grunow, with a .25 caliber handgun in school. Palm Beach County prosecutors tried Brazill as an adult for first degree murder. The jury found Brazill guilty of second-degree murder and the judge sentenced him to 28 years in an adult facility. After his release, Brazill will face two years of house arrest and five years of probation.” (Klug)
Does this sentence appear too severe, or perhaps too tolerant? Without understanding all of the specifics involved in the case, it may be harder to conclude what would be the best thing to do with 13-year-old Brazill. What exact details would an individual need to know in order to judge him correctly? Has he ever finished this before? What were his motives? Is he from a difficult neighborhood, dwelling in an awful family situation? Perhaps all of these things don’t mean anything in working out Brazill’s judgment, and he should just be penalized according to his offense.
If you’re having a hard time deciding, you’re not alone in this matter. Since the juvenile court’s introduction in 1899, there have been arguments over whether or not the court is productive in treating juveniles. Brazill’s case illustrates the view that the juvenile court is not effective, or is not sufficient to deal with situations as grave as Brazill’s. This is apparent in the detail that he was taken to adult court as a 13-year-old as are against to being tried in juvenile court.
The recent move in the direction of trying more juveniles as adults is a plain sign that the juvenile justice system is not effective. No one will contradict with that. However, people will contradict on what the system is presumed to ...
... middle of paper ...
...2014, from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/
13/ltm.18.html.
Bradshaw, Judy A. “The Juvenile Justice System: Is It Working?” FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin. May 1995: 14-16.
Collier, L. (n.d.). Adult Crime, Adult Time. Washington Post. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/juvmurders/stories/
adultcrime.htm.
Friedman, B. (n.d.). Protecting Truth: An Argument for Juvenile Rights and a Return to In re
Gault. UCLA Law Review. Retrieved January 16, 2014, from
http://www.uclalawreview.org/?p=1535.
Klug, E. (2001, December 1). Corrections Today - Geographical Disparities among Trying and
Sentencing Juveniles. (CT Feature). The Free Online Library. Retrieved January 14,
2014, from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Geographical+Disparities+among+Trying+
and+Sentencing+Juveniles.+(CT...-a081223414.
Bartollas, Clemens and Miller, Stuart J. (2014). Juvenile justice in america (7 ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, 58-60.
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.
...s A. Preciado, but despite these wrong decisions being made by juveniles, they deserve a second chance to better themselves as potential future citizens. Even Gail garinger who was a former juvenile judge believes that they are capable such manner, In her article, “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences” written March 14, 2012 and published by New York Times, it states that “as a former juvenile court judge, I have seen firsthand the enormous capacity of children to change and turn themselves around. The same malleability that makes them vulnerable to peer pressure also makes them promising candidates for rehabilitation”. I believe, and still do, that even though juveniles that have taken a wrong path, regardless of what they 've done, need guidance from us and people who were once juveniles to mentor them and be given a second chance, just as I did a long time ago.
In a modern Western society where there is significant amount of research done of rehabilitation and criminal justice reform, the practice of sentencing JLWOP (Juvenile Life Without Parole) seems outdated and primitive. There are a number of prominent human rights groups that advocate for the banning of the LWOP sentence for juvenile offenders. In his 2010 article for the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation titled ‘Extinguishing All Hope: Life-Without-Parole for Juveniles,’ Frank Butler breaks down the ethical arguments against the sentence from a social policy perspective. He uses a number of pertinent facts and dates to support and enhance his argument, but retains a clear and concise presentation style, making the document easy to read and comprehend on an analytical level. It is clear from his title that it is not an objective piece, but his opinion is supporte...
In the last 42 years little to no changes have been made to correct the standards that govern punitive measures towards juvenile delinquency. Today juvenile law is governed by state and many states have enacted a juvenile code. However, in numerous cases, juveniles are transferred to adult court when juvenile courts waive or relinquish jurisdiction. Adolescents should not be tried in the adult court system or sentenced to adult penitentiary's on account of: teen brains are not mature which causes a lack of understanding towards the system, incarceration in an adult facility increases juvenile crime, and children that are sentenced to adult prison are vulnerable to abuse and rape.
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.
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.
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.
Harassment, reckless endangerment, and burglary are all juvenile offenses. These juvenile offenses almost always stay on the juvenile’s criminal record, and the offenses displayed on a juvenile’s criminal record may cause employers, educators, and other authority figures to think less of the juvenile offender. As a viewer can see, this one mistake or lapse in judgment can ruin the juvenile offenders chance to further their success in life. For example, juvenile offenders may not obtain the dream job that they have always wanted, get into the college that they have always wanted to, or be eligible for a scholarship whether athletic or academic. However, there is a loophole in the juvenile justice system called teen courts. Teen courts give first-time offenders and some re-offenders a second chance because the offense (s) do not go on their criminal record, and their peers get to decide what sanctions the juvenile offender receives or performs. The big question that I am going to discuss throughout this essay is do juvenile offenders who appear before teen courts recidivate?
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.
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.
In the article “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences”, by Garinger, she argues that juveniles should not be treated as adults if they commit horrible crimes. Garinger states that juveniles should not be sentenced to life in prison without parole. She states that the court is considering life in prison without parole for juveniles who commit capital crimes. Garinger says that juveniles are immature, and still developing, so they can not be held to the same standards as adults. The writer adds that as a juvenile court judge, she has seen how juveniles can change and may become rehabilitated.
The dilemma of juvenile incarceration is a problem that thankfully has been declining, but still continues to be an ethical issue. The de-incarceration trend has coincided with a decrease in crime. It is hopeful that our nation is changing the approach to the treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. It means we know what to do and what is working, now just to follow through and continue the change to creating a juvenile justice system that is truly rehabilitative and gives youth tools to be able to be positive members of
“Juvenile Justice and Injustice” New York, New York Margaret O. Hyde, 1977. Johnson, Jason B. Slain Teen’s family: Cops eyeing 7-10 suspects.” Boston Herald. 7 April 1995 Olney, Ross R. Up Against The Law. New York, New York: NAL Penguin Inc., 1985.
Today?s court system is left with many difficult decisions. One of the most controversial being whether to try juveniles as adults or not. With the number of children in adult prisons and jails rising rapidly, questions are being asked as to why children have been committing such heinous crimes and how will they be stopped. The fact of the matter is that it is not always the children's fault for their poor choices and actions; they are merely a victim of their environment or their parents. Another question asked is how young is too young. Children who are too young to see an R rated film unaccompanied are being sent to adult prisons. The only boundaries that seem to matter when it comes to being an adult are laws that restrain kids from things such as alcohol, pornography, and other materials seen as unethical. Children that are sent to adult prison are going to be subjected to even more unprincipled ideas and scenes. When children can be sent to jail for something as minor as a smash and grab burglary, the judicial system has errors. The laws that send juveniles to adult prisons are inhumane, immoral, and unjust. Kids are often incompetent, which leads to unfair trials. Adult prisons are also very dangerous for minors, and in many cases this leads to more juvenile crimes.