Crime Prevention Programs in USA: An Analysis of Teen Courts

Youth and juvenile crime is a common and serious issue in current society, and people, especially parents and educators, are pretty worried about the trend of this problem. According to Bala and Roberts, around 17% of criminals were youths, compared to 8% of Canadian population ranging between 12 to 18 years of age between 2003 and 2004 (2006, p37). As a big federal country, Canada has taken a series of actions since 1908. So far, there are three justice acts in the history of Canadian juvenile justice system, the 1908 Juvenile Delinquents Act, the 1982 Young Offenders Act, and the 2003 Youth Criminal Justice Act. In Canada, the judicial system and the principle of these laws have been debated for a long time. This paper will discuss how

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.

The juvenile court system was established in the United States over more than a century ago, with the first court appearing in Illinois in 1899. Prior to that time, children and youth were seen as small adults with that the youth were tried and punished as adults.

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

Throughout this essay, I am going to be looking at the topic of youth offending. I will be looking at what factors can be used as the predictors for youth offending and in particular I will be researching into how important social and cultural factors as predictors of youth offending. In order to do this, I will be looking at different sociologists theories as far as young offending is concerned and what evidence there is to support these theories. I will then conclude by discussing whether I believe social and cultural factors are important in determining youth offending.

Unfortunately, in a society dominated by material wealth and status, young individuals often make drastic errors in judgment. Many young individuals, attempting to mimic their role models, pursue endeavors that are as unprofitable as there are detrimental. Activities such as theft, assault, burglary, and vandalism are all common mistakes that young individuals in society make. The reasons for such activity are as varied as they are bizarre. However, society must account for these infringements on individual rights with proper correctional initiatives. One of these initiatives, geared primarily towards young adults, is centered on juvenile court. Juvenile court provides services and support to youth between the ages of 10 and 17. The primary goal of this supervision is to monitor and assist children in hopes of returning these individuals back to society in a productive manner. The Juvenile Court Services unit of Kenosha Wisconsin is no different in this regard as it attempts to aid its youth by preventing destructive behavior from occurring (Dishion, 1999).

In the United States, juveniles have always known to cause trouble in the community. In recent times, many individuals have the perception that juvenile crimes are on the rise and that these offenders are getting younger. Charging juveniles as adult has always been a debate, because of their thinking process and protecting their rights. There are many cases that regard juveniles that have changed the policies of this nation. Also for those juveniles that are convicted as adults, there are many challenges that correctional officials have when housing them. Waivering juveniles to adult court has many factors to it and whether or not juveniles age thirteen and fourteen should be

I have been volunteering at teen court since eighth grade and currently am in my fifth year in the program. Many teenagers in my community commit crimes such as larceny, affray, possession of drugs, etc., but are unaware of the consequences when such incidents occur. Teen court alleviates the worst case scenario of these adolescents having a blemish on the record – a blotch that could hinder future college and job prospects. Instead of just merely facing punishment, the defendants that undergo teen court are given constructive sentences such as community service or teen court jury duty. However, there is another catch. Their peers take over all of the traditional courtroom roles, from jurors to clerks to bailiffs to even attorneys. The only traditional role taken over by an adult is that of the judge, who is generally an actual judge or

In Canada when a young person gets in trouble with the law the punishment they will receive will be in accordance with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Youth Criminal Justice Act was created in 2003. The main objective of this legislation is to hold youth accountable for their actions through the promotion of “rehabilitation” and “reintegration” (Youth Criminal Justice Act, 2002, S.3). Within the Canadian court system there is a youth court for individuals who get in trouble with the law while they are still under the legal age of 18 years. In Calgary, Alberta the youth courtrooms are located at the Calgary Courts Center building with is located on 601 5th Street SW. I attended youth court on Wednesday October 26, 2016 and Monday October 31th. This paper will shed light on the atmosphere of the youth courtroom; analyze how the criminal justice professionals are acting within the courtroom, discuss certain cases that went through the youth courts.

“It helped me realize I was not around the right crowd and got me on the right path for my future,” states Emmalyne Sheridan, a current WVU freshman and experiencer of the teen court process. Teen courts are legally binding, sentence based courts for first time low-level juvenile offenders that aim to build character instead of issuing punishments. These courts consist of juveniles holding positions such as clerk, prosecuting and defence attorneys, bailiff, and the jury. The entire process is completed with little adult involvement resulting in an almost completely teen run system. Some may argue that these programs are useless and just delay the process of actual teen reformation, but this is not the case. Teen court programs should be established and utilized in all jurisdictions because of their use of reform over punishment, influence, and establishment of a future pathway.

Today’s court system comes with many crucial outcomes. The most questionable outcome is whether teens should be tried as adults. Many people are against the idea of teens being tried as adults in courts and argue that they are immature but, most teens had the mental capacity as an adult to plan a murder. Crimes that teens have committed have been in the felony level which is the type of crimes adults have made. Juvenile delinquents should be treated as adults in courts because they have committed unforgivable felonies; therefore, they should not have any leniency while in court because of their age.

The first juvenile courts were established in 1899, the idea behind creating the juvenile court was to get the juveniles substitute

The difference between juvenile court and adult court have been distinct. The issue has been a controversial one for a long time. The two justice systems, juvenile court and adult court have been long established for decades. Both involve people accused of crimes with the basic individual rights in the court. According to Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, it stated, “Youth may be held under juvenile court jurisdiction from age 12 until age 21, or until age 25 if he or she is committed to the California division of juvenile justice.” (YLC, 2009) The purpose of juvenile court system was set up for those youths who are not as mature and cannot be held as adults. However, juvenile crimes are becoming more often and heinous, it is necessary to focus

The juvenile justice system has grown and changed substantially since 1899, when the nation’s first juvenile court was established in Illinois. Originally, the court process was informal often nothing more than a conversation between the youth and the judge and the defendant lacked legal representation. To replace confinement in jails with adults, the early juvenile courts created a probation system and used a separate service delivery system to provide minors with supervision, guidance, and education. Soon every state and the District of Columbia had followed Illinois’s lead and established a juvenile court. In 1967, in a landmark ruling in the case of In re Gault, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Constitution requires that youth in the juvenile system have many of the same rights guaranteed to adults accused of crimes, including the right to an attorney and the right to confront witnesses against them. Later, the Supreme Court gave youth constitutional rights to have trials that require proof beyond a reasonable doubt; and gave youth a constitutional right against double jeopardy (Youth in the Justice System, n.d.).

U.S. criminal law draws an important distinction between adult perpetrators of crimes and young offenders who often lack the critical faculties to fully understand the nature of their actions. Based on the belief that adolescent offenders can be rehabilitated more quickly and completely than adults, the criminal justice system has instituted a separate system for handling juvenile cases. According to the Michael A. Newland Law Office, based in Hamilton, OH, the juvenile law system offers a few major advantages to youths accused of a crime.