Adult Sentence Case Study

In the United States, though different states have different transfer laws regarding ways a juvenile could be transferred to criminal court, most states used one of these transfer laws; once adult/always adult laws, reverse waiver laws and blended sentencing laws. Under once adult/always adult laws, a juvenile who have been tried as adults will be prosecuted in criminal court for any subsequent offenses. Reverse waiver laws, on the other hand, makes it possible for juvenile who is being prosecuted as an adult in criminal court to appeal their case to be transferred to juvenile court. A compromise between those who wanted rehabilitation and those who wanted punishment for the juvenile offender, blended sentencing laws appear to be the law that could determine the appropriate Court of Jurisdiction for juveniles.

“The juvenile justice system was first created in the late 1800s to reform United States policies on how to handle youth offenders. Since that time, a number of reforms - aimed at both protecting the "due process of law" rights of youth, and creating an aversion toward jail among the young - have made the juvenile justice system more comparable to the adult system, which is a shift from the United States’ original intent (2008,Lawyer Shop.com).” The

One of the most debatable topics in today’s justice system is whether or not juveniles should receive waivers to adult court. There are three methods that are used to transfer a juvenile to adult court. Juvenile waiver, statutory exclusion, and Concurrent Jurisdiction are the three different methods used to transfer a juvenile to adult court. Statutory exclusion is when the juvenile is transferred immediately to the adult court. Concurrent Jurisdiction is when the juvenile may be tried as an adult and a juvenile at once. Throughout all three methods juvenile waiver is the most common one that is used throughout juvenile courts and used in mostly all states. The only states that do not provide judicial waivers are Nebraska, New York, and New Mexico. When a judge transfers a juvenile to adult court, he or she is denying the protections that the juveniles receive. The judge makes the decision of whether or not the juvenile is tried as an adult. Double Jeapordy laws protect the juvenile from being tried in juvenile court and then adult court because of the fact that a juvenile would be tried twice. Most times 17 or 18 year olds are the youngest age limits that can be waived to adult court, but in some states ages low as 13 or 14 can be waived. It depends on the crime that a juvenile commits on whether or not he or she is transferred to adult court. Once the juvenile is tried as an adult, he or she will be affect in the community for a lifetime versus having his or her records

A juvenile offender should be tried according to his crime. If he has committed a juvenile crime, then juvenile punishment is fitting. However, if he has committed an adult crime, or violent crime,

When a decision is made to transfer a juvenile case to criminal court, a judicial waiver

In Texas, the Juvenile Law states that, “a juvenile is defined as a person who is not old enough to be held responsible for criminal acts.” In order for a juvenile to be tried as an adult, a prosecutor can use one of many ways to go about this. One way prosecutors can proceed, in trying the juvenile as an adult, is by exercising the 2011 Senate Bill 1209. This bill gives counties in Texas the option to hold certified youth in juvenile facilities while they await trial. However, the law does not state specifically that they have to be detained in a juvenile facility. The juveniles can also be detained in an adult facility. Another way prosecutors are trying juveniles as adults is by not allowing the rehabilitation programs to run their course when the juvenile turns 19 years of age. The argument has also been made that juveniles in prison for nonviolent offenses are much different in the adult prison system.

In the adult justice system the guilty person would face a trial by a jury. The jury would be given the evidence of the crime, decide if the person is guilty or not, then judge would make the final running. As well at the end of an adult trial a punishment would be handed out such as imprisonment sentence. Where in a juvenile case the judge would decide what form of rehabilitation the child would benefit most from and what would best likely help.

Today, the juvenile system primary goals are crime reduction and rehabilitation. The juvenile officials must assess whether youthful offenders are likely to commit crimes in the future and whether they can benefit from interventions. If these kids cannot benefit, then they will most like end up a delinquent. In most states delinquency is defined as the commission of a criminal act by a child who was under the age of 18 at that time (Virginia Rules). Most states allow youth to remain under the supervision of the juvenile court until the age of 21, but this depends on the type of crime that was committed. There has been many times where a juvenile case was transferred to an adult criminal court. This would have to be done thru a process called a waiver. A waiver is when a judge waives the protections that the juvenile court provides (Larry J. Siegel). Cases that

1. What has been the primary factor in the growth in the number of individuals under correctional supervision over the past twenty years? The primary factor in the growth of individuals under correctional supervision in the past twenty years has been due to tougher laws, correctional supervision also has a broader scope of people under supervision and there are more offenders that are sentenced with drug and property offences. Correctional supervision also includes people out on bond, probation and parole.

The juvenile justice system is very similar to that of an adult justice system. Young criminals go through the same process an adult criminal would go through, including: arrest, detainment, petitions, hearings, probation and reentry. Many states have different standards as to when a person is considered to be an adult, bringing lots of controversy. As fourteen states do not even have a minimum age a child could be tried as an adult. Why is it that children are not capable of understanding life until the age of eighteen and cannot make decisions for themselves, but once a crime is committed the child surely knew what they were doing and could be tried as an adult? If under the age of sixteen children should not be tried as adults, as many times children do not understand the consequences of their actions.

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

Some jurisdictions require the child to be over a certain age and charged with a felony, while others permit waiver if the child is over a certain age regardless of offense. Still yet, others have no conditions. Juveniles can be tried in all stated in one of three ways: 1. Concurrent Jurisdiction: the prosecutor has the discretion of filing charge offenses in either juvenile or criminal court. 2. Excluded offenses: the legislature excludes from juvenile court jurisdiction certain offenses that are either very minor, such as traffic or fishing violations, or very serious, such as murder or rape. 3. Judicial waiver: the juvenile court waives its jurisdiction and transfers the case to criminal court. Barry Feld, Juvenile Law Scholar, suggests that waivers to adult court be mandatory for serious crimes. Those espousing the crime control model believe that the overriding purpose is protection of the public, deterrence or violent juvenile behavior, and the incarceration of serious youthful offenders in the adult criminal justice system. The rehabilitative justice model view this as an attack on the juvenile justice system, but crime control advocates consider such steps a necessary response to a rising juvenile violence rate. Life in Adult Prison The Southwest Multi County Corrections Center, a two-story adult jail is the largest maximum-security program for juveniles under federal authority. The BOP pays

Of the remaining children who are tried in adult court, forty percent get probation; only three percent of juvenile offenders tried in adult court received longer sentences than they would have been given in juvenile court.(Allinson). There are options available when sentencing juveniles, before deciding on the ultimate sentence of death. Although, the alternatives discussed here are only applicable to less violent offenders.

With the escalation of murders and rapes committed by minors as seen in recent years the people are looking for the right answer. Public concern over the effectiveness of the juvenile courts when dealing with these offenders has brought about change in the justice system. (Stolba, 2001). The courts now, are quicker to transfer a juveniles’ case to adult court than when the juvenile system was first formed. There stands a conflict of interests within the two court systems. Juvenile courts are to protect the rights of youths determined incapable of adult decisions. The primary concern is that the youth be rehabilitated and not become a repeat offender. Thus, protecting the child from incarceration with adult criminals and any possible future victims. The concerns of the adult court is to make sure the convicted offender pays for their crime and that the victim gets justice. Rehabilitation is not a primary concer of the adult justice system.

As a contrast, there are many differences between the adult and juvenile justice system. These differences consist of the right to a jury, the right to post bail, leniency of evidence, different court proceedings, the right to a public trial, and rehabilitation efforts. As for the purpose of this paper, we will dissect the differences of the two systems. Many appeals have been filed under the notion that a right to a jury should be upheld for juvenile offenders. The courts have voted against this action time and time again. These appeals are made on the assumption that, as noted earlier, adult crimes should be tried as adult crimes. However, the court rules on this matter while keeping the rehabilitation efforts of the juvenile courts in mind, as opposed to the more punitive measures. Their desire to see kids treated as kids are defined with their upholding of the law, and pushing rehabilitation to its max. But should rehabilitation be the prime focus when the act is of adult capacity; even in a child’s body? I do not think so. What are the percentages of rehabilitation success with adults for committed capital offenses? How are they going to differ when a child partakes in them? I think there is a