Annotated Bibliography On Juvenile Offenders

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

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.

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

Approximately two million adolescents a year are arrested and out of that two million, 60,000 of them are incarcerated according to the American Journal of Public Health. The 60,000 incarcerated adolescents each year are being tried as adults in court because of the serious crimes they have committed. The crimes they have committed are anything from armed robbery to murder. Some juveniles might be first time offenders and others might be repeat offenders. Crimes have always been a major issue in the United States and can cause controversy in the criminal justice system. Charging a minor as an adult in criminal court varies from state to state based on each state’s jurisdiction. Some states consider anyone up to the age of 18 still a juvenile and would not be charged as an adult in criminal court, but other states may charge a juvenile as an adult at the age of 16 or 17. Jordan (2014) states, “Although states already had methods for transferring youth to the adult system, as a result of the growing fear of juvenile violence, most states implemented new laws to increase the number of youth entering the adult criminal system’ (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Torbet et al., 1996)” (p. 315). While it sounds beneficial to incarcerate more adolescents in the adult criminal justice system to avoid juveniles from committing crimes in the future, that is not always the case. Incarcerating these juveniles can be life changing in a negative

A juvenile can be transferred automatically be transferred to adult court on the grounds of once an adult, always an adult. Due to previous charges, transferring to adult court terminates juvenile court jurisdiction over a juvenile for any offense unless the transfer is followed by an acquittal or a dismissal of the charge that resulted in the transfer. Within 90 days a juvenile is charged with an offense and no less than 14 days prior to the transfer hearing, the decision on whether or not the state will seek transfer has to be made,

Juvenile Transfer to Adult Courts: A Look at the Prototypes for Dangerousness, Sophistication-Maturity, and Amenability to Treatment through a Legal Lens http://psycnet.apa.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/journals/law/8/4/373.html

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

We should be cautious about the application of juvenile transfer/waiver because it is controversial with the public. We have to gain the sense of the public’s willingness to transfer juveniles to adult court. There are many variables that the public have taken into consideration that may be susceptible about the methods of juvenile transfer. Those variables are demographic characteristics of the offender, victim, and respondent. According to the article, the findings indicated that the age of the offender and the seriousness of the offense influence citizen’s desire to transfer juvenile to adult court. The problem is that the increased juvenile transfer doesn’t necessarily decrease the crime in juveniles.

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

There are three ways cases are sent to adult court, there is concurrent jurisdiction where certain cases can be tried in either juvenile or adult court, statutory exclusion, where certain offenses are automatically tried in adult court and judicial waiver where a hearing is held to decide whether the case will be transferred (Seigel & Welsh, 2011). While the process does differ from State to State there are some basic guidelines “…states that have transfer hearings provide a legitimate transfer hearing, sufficient notice to the child’s family and defense attorney, the right to counsel, and a statement of the reason for the court order regarding transfer” Seigel & Welsh, 2011).

The laws governing the transfer of juvenile offenders from the juvenile court system to the adult criminal court system do vary from state to state, consequently, a very small percentage are actually waived (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, n.d.). The discretion of the court is first and foremost to protect society from a violent offender. There are instances where a juvenile offender poses such a great risk to society, although they are extremely rare, the court will have no choice but to remand them to be held.

However, the transfer laws do not lower the juvenile crime rates. For example, in New York a law that sent violent juvenile offenders to criminal courts did not have an effect on violent juvenile crime. Serious crimes presented before the adult criminal court included murder, assault, burglary, rape and arson. In other cases, young offenders become aware of the consequences once tried in the adult courts. When committing the crimes, they think that they will receive light punishments imposed by juvenile courts but when referred to adult courts, the youth tend to become more responsible. Therefore, prior knowledge of resultant punishment plays role in crime reduction among the youths. Subjecting the young offenders to face adult courts brings to their attention the seriousness of the matter at hand (Jeff, page 8).

Juvenile justice has proved to be as imprudent as it is practical. Snyder and Sickmund (1999) found that as early as 1825, there was a significant push to establish a separate juvenile justice system focused on rehabilitation and treatment. The procedure continued to stay focused on the rehabilitation of a person, even though financial support and assets sustained to hold back its achievement. In reaction to rising juvenile crime rates in the 1980s’, more corrective laws were approved (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). In the 1990s, the United States legal system took further steps regarding transfer provisions that lowered the threshold at which juveniles could be tried in criminal court and sentenced to adult prison (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). Furthermore, laws were enacted that allowed prosecutors and judges more discretion in their sentencing options; and confidentiality standards, which made juvenile court proceedings and records more available to the public (Snyder and Sickmund 1999), were reduced.

Every process has room for improvement, but the juvenile justice system can be altered by adding in possible solutions of what can be done to help this problem in American society. About 100 years ago, juveniles were always tried as adults. Now, that the government has altered the system for the better, the government knows that trying juveniles as adults is not always justified. It depends on the crime, but the majority of the time, juveniles are often always tried as juveniles, based solely on their age. Not only that has changed; the process of juvenile justice has changed as well to better help the juveniles in the system. The rights of juveniles in the system have changed so that the children can improve their lives once they are out of the system. Even though the process has changed and the rights have improved for the juveniles, there are still many improvements to be made. Studies show that recidivism rates are in fact going down, but the rate can always be better so that juveniles do not return to a life of crime.

For example, in 1996 the legislature in the state of Missouri lowered the minimum age for transfer from fourteen to twelve (Zierdt, 1999, p.419). States in favor of this kind of shift justify the transfer because chronic juvenile offenders in rehabilitation centers will likely disrupt the reformation of other juvenile offenders as they are considered as a bad influence on them. It is thus, considered that in not transferring the juveniles in adult prisons, these chronic juvenile offenders disrupts the growth and development of other teens undergoing rehabilitation.