The criminal justice system has a branch for juvenile offenders. Established in the early twentieth century; it is the responsibility of this division to decide the fates of youthful offenders. This is administered by family court with support of social workers and family. With the increased number of youthful, violent offenders, many are being processed and sentenced as adults. Important issues such as culpability, severity of the crime, accountability, constitutional rights of the offenders and victims, and probability of rehabilitation,
In this paper, I will be discussing both the juvenile and the adult justice systems. There are several differences between the two systems, which may surprise you. I will be discussing many aspects within the justice systems. These include Terminology, Due Process rights, the process of Arrest to Corrections, Juvenile crime compared to Adult crime, age limits and waivers for the adult system and the different community correctional options, which are available to the offenders. The two systems share many of the same terms but not all terms are shared by both systems. In summary, the juvenile justice system and the adult justice system, vary in many ways and are alike in many ways.
The number of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system is one of the most pressing problems facing law enforcement and corrections today (Cuellar, McReynolds, & Wasserman, 2006). The Surgeon General’s Report on Mental Health estimated that about 20% of children and adolescents in the general population have mental disorders with some degree of at least mild functional impairment (USPH, 1999). Subsequent research has found much higher rates of serious mental health problems among youth in the juvenile justice system. Among youth who have been arrested, one study found that 31% of youth had received services from the mental health system (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt, & Biggs, 2000). Two studies of youth in juvenile detention found that between 60% and 68% met the diagnostic criteria for a mental health disorder (Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002; Wasserman, Ko, & McReynolds, 2004). Once youth with emotional disturbances enter the justice system, repeated arrests are common through the remainder of childhood and into adulthood. Recidivism rates for individuals with a serious mental illness are nearly double those in the general population (Baillargeon, Binswanger, Penn, Williams, & Murray, 2009; Constantine, Petrila, Andel, Givens, Becker et al., 2010). In an analysis of juvenile trajectories, youth with emotional disturbances in their late adolescent years were more likely to fall into the high arrest trajectory class and much
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
Kamron Cobbs is a 14-year-old African American male that was referred to this evaluator for a Special Sex Offender Disposition Alternative (SSODA) evaluation by Snohomish County Juvenile Court Probation Counselor Sara Bolton. Kamron is currently being charged with Rape in the Third Degree. It is alleged that Kamron engaged in sexual misconduct with an eleven year old developmentally delayed female who will be referred to as ER in this evaluation.
Juvenile delinquency has become a controversial issue within the Criminal Justice system. In the United States, juvenile delinquency refers to disruptive and criminal behavior committed by an individual under the age of 18. In many states, a minor at the age of 16 to 17 ½ can be tried as an adult. Once the individual reaches adulthood, the disruptive and criminal behavior is recognized as a crime. However, the criminal justice system has divided juvenile delinquency into two general types of categories that has brought upon controversial issues of inequality and corruption. Yet, putting young individuals in juvenile detentions facilities seems to open the door for them to commit more crimes in the future. Therefore, under certain circumstances juveniles should be tried as an adult.
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
Researchers conducted a national study of how the juvenile court judge weighs the pertinent Kent criteria. This criterion is based on the potential risk to the community, the maturity of character and amenability to intervention. The purpose of this study is three fold, first to test the juvenile court judges' beliefs regarding the mechanics of how juveniles are transferred, second to examine the judges' beliefs about the usefulness of data presented of them and third determined how juvenile judges' weigh pertinent psychological concepts linked to transfer cases when making a decision. There were four hypothesis based on previous research and theory, one would be juvenile judges' prefer case by case sorting and second juvenile court judges would find information on the Kent concepts useful to their decision and want the Kent information in the form of a psychological report. The third hypothesis is weighing the concepts; juveniles who scored high on dangerousness and sophistication- maturity, but low on amenability to treatment would most likely be transferred to adult court and fourth youths scoring low on the dangerousness and sophistication- maturity but high on the amenability to treatment would most likely retain in juvenile 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.
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
Many have argued that competency to stand trial is the “most significant mental health inquiry pursued in the system of criminal law” (Cowden & Mckee). This pillar of the American Legal System assures that those accused of criminal acts must be sufficiently competent to understand and partake in the trial proceedings. The threshold of competence can differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but it mainly hinges on a series of factors such as cognitive deficits, the presence of a mental illness, and an inability to comprehend or effectively communicate with legal counsel. While this standard was made legal precedent in the 1960s it was only in regards to the adult criminal system; however, in past decades legal reform has allowed for youths to be tried and subjected to the same punishments as adult defendants (Schwartz & Grisso). This legal development brings about a very imperative issue: Should youth offenders be subjected to the same standard of competence as their adult counterparts? Furthermore, since these statutes were developed for determining competency in adults, can they properly recognize the uniqueness of the youth population?
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.
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.
As stated by Bartol and Bartol “Juvenile delinquency is an imprecise, nebulous, social, clinical, and legal label for a wide variety of law- and norm-violating behavior” (2011, Pg 139). The juvenile delinquency term has come to imply disgrace in today's correctional institution. Our government is up hold to procedures and expected to come with a solution to solving the delinquent problem. An underage offender can be labeled a delinquent for breaking any number of laws, ranging from robbery to running away from home, and especially being involved in school violence. The following situations faced by correction officials when dealing with juvenile delinquents will be examined. Three main areas (child development, punishments, and deterrence