Assessment And Juvenile Offenders Research Paper

Five major court cases that influenced our treatment of juveniles today include Kent v. United States (1966), In re Gault (1967), In re Winship (1970), McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) and Breen v. Jones (1975). Kent v. United States (1966) set the standards for transfers. In this case, the judge ruled Kent to adult court without consulting with the child, the child’s mother or attorney. It was this case that determined the attorney has the right to review documentation presented by the probation officer. Thanks to In re Gault (1967), juveniles how have a right to due process during any proceedings in which a juvenile is facing institutional confinement. It was also outlined in In re Gault (1967) exactly what a juveniles rights are during the entire process. Key rights are being notified of the charges brought up against them, right to counsel and cross-examination of witnesses by the attorney’s.

Once a minor has been transferred and convicted in a California court of criminal jurisdiction, subsequent charges will be filed in adult criminal court (Center for Juvenile & Criminal Justice). The California state legislature has recently modified the juvenile law so that a minor can be transferred from juvenile court to the adult court and tried as adult in specified serious or violent felony cases, even if the minor is as young as 14. In most juvenile crime cases a judge will determine when it is appropriate to make such a transfer, however, in certain serious juvenile criminal cases the prosecutor may directly charge a minor in adult court. (Neubauer, 446)

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.

Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 [1966]). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.

It is common knowledge that t he degree in which a person is convicted, more often than not, depends on the severity of the crime. In the late 80’s and early 90’s, juvenile crimes were at an all time high which resulted in the a strong advocacy for stricter trials for young criminals . Many congressmen pushed for harsher trials and punishments for juvenile offenders to set the example that even though they are young, their actions have consequences. Miles Corwin, a journalist for

Juvenile correctional systems have many different components and some are likely to be affected with a primary focus on rehabilitation. Today the United States falls short of providing adequate public juvenile facilities. With a focus on punishment, the need for new facilities will continue to rise. Switching the primary focus to

With this message directed towards juveniles, as well as the likely chance that juveniles whom are transferred to the adult criminal court system will result in some type of incarceration, this may lead to a deterrence of violent or misbehaved actions committed by juveniles in an attempt to avoid these prosecutions. These statements conducted by Urbina and White (2009), are statements to consider on the issue of a juveniles transfer to adult criminal court. Although there are strong facts to support this type of transfer for juveniles, Urbina and White (2009) also found that this might not be the best option in some cases. There have been studies that showed juveniles whom were transferred to the adult criminal court system and sent to adult jails were more likely to re-offend and with more serious crimes than did their juvenile counterparts (Urbina & White, 2009). With this study that was conducted, it adds doubt to the fact that juveniles should be transferred to the adult criminal court system. Although, at times, this may be the best option for serious and violent repeated offenders, it is not likely that this process will have a positive affect on the juvenile or the community. Urbina and White (2009) continue to lack strong argumentative evidence to show the exact times that transferring a juvenile to the adult criminal court system is the

In transferring, a juvenile to adult court there is a certain amount of criteria that needs to be followed. The first criteria is if the juvenile is dangerous to the community, the maturity of the offender, and the psychological findings of the offender, it helps to determine if the juvenile is qualified to be transferred to adult court. This information is to happen in the intake process upon the processing of the offender into custody. There were two different types of questionnaires that were sent out to the juvenile court judges. With doing a survey with juvenile court judges around the nation, only 44% responded back on what the criteria to transfer the offender to adult court. These surveys made the criteria form a standard that every juvenile judge follows in determining a transfer to adult court.

This paper takes a brief look at the history and evolution of the juvenile justice system in the United States. In recent years there has been an increase of juvenile cases being transferred into the adult court system. This paper will also look at that process and the consequences of that trend.

In transferring, a juvenile to adult court there is a certain amount of criteria that needs to be followed. The first criteria is if the juvenile is dangerous to the community, the maturity of the offender, and the psychology findings of the offender, it helps to determine if the juvenile is qualified to be transferred to adult court. This information is to happen in the intake process upon the processing of the offender into custody. There were two different types of questionnaires that were sent out to the juvenile court judges. With doing a survey with juvenile court judges around the nation, only 44% responded back on what the criteria to transfer the offender to adult court. These surveys made the criteria form a standard that every juvenile judge follows in determining a transfer to adult court.

Although based on the adult criminal justice system, the juvenile justice process works differently. Juveniles can end up in court by way of arrest, truancy or for curfew violations or running away. A youth may also be referred to the juvenile court system by school officials or a parent or guardian for being continuously disobedient. The juvenile justice process involves several different steps including intake, detention, adjudication, disposition and aftercare following release from a juvenile correctional facility. In this paper we will breakdown the numerous steps involved in the juvenile justice process as well as compared some

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.

A comparison of young offenders charged in New Jersey’s juvenile court and in New York’s criminal court shows that youths convicted for serious crimes in criminal courts repeated crimes at a higher rate after their release than the ones tried in juvenile courts. From the many research conducted, the following is evident; transferred juveniles are more likely to offend, and there is a greater likelihood of re-arrest of offenders. In fact, a hundred-percentage likelihood of re-arrest of violent offense criminals, and these transfers increase recidivisms among the offenders (Lonn, page 82).

Finally, literature on the juvenile justice system often focuses on program implementation and effectiveness at addressing rehabilitation, as well as diversion techniques within the system (Greenwood, 2008). This review audits these problems in detail and establishes them within the bigger struggle in the juvenile justice system to rehabilitate youth offenders.

Juvenile delinquency has been a problem in the United States ever since it has been able to be documented. From 100 years ago to now, the process of juvenile delinquency has changed dramatically; from the way juveniles are tried, to the way that they are released back into society, so that they do not return back to the justice system (Scott and Steinberg, 2008). Saying this, juveniles tend to