Due Process And Juveniles ' Rights

There were several decisions made by the Supreme Court that formalized courts for juveniles, making them more like criminal courts. Formal hearings were required, juveniles who faced confinement were given the right to receive a notice of the charges being held against them, and also came along the right to be represented by an attorney. In the 1980’s the public noticed that juvenile crimes were rising and that the system was not effective. Soon states began implementing disciplinary laws, some which included a mandatory sentencing and automatically being sent to adult court for certain crimes committed.

Morris A. Kent was a young teenager who had been in and out of trouble in the District of Columbia during the late 50’s and early 60’s. Kent had stayed in the juvenile court system on probation all the way up until 1961. When at the age of sixteen he was charged with several charges and was waivered into the adult system and later found guilty. Although, Kent appealed his case and his appeal went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court (Find Law, 2014).

In Contrast to Bryan Stevenson’s “Just Mercy” stories of juveniles being tried as adults, Jason Zeidenberg in the article “The Risks Juveniles Face When They Are Incarcerated with Adults” strongly emphasizes the dangers and consequences that juveniles face when they are tried as adults. Zeidenberg states the consequences of juveniles being raped, assaulted, committing suicide and the effects of being victimized. Children who are housed in the same facility as Adults is not a good idea nor a good mix, according to Zeidenberg a “15-year-old girl was sexually assaulted in Ohio by a deputy after she was placed in an adult jail for a minor in

The Juvenile Justice System was established in 1899 when the first documented court hearing took place in Cook County, Illinois. This type of court system was designed to discipline, treat, and rehabilitate children under the legal age of eighteen, who are caught and/or convicted of committing crimes against society. Since its creation, many have argued for and against having two separate but parallel court systems. This essay will discuss the basic arguments in favor of and in opposition to the retention of the juvenile justice system.

It has been one hundred years since the creation of the juvenile court in the United States. The court and the juvenile justice system has made some positive changes in the lives of millions of young people lives over the course or those years, within the last thirteen years there has been some daunting challenges in the system.

The juvenile justice system was fashioned in the late 1800s; restructuring policies in the United States concerning adolescent offenders was a part of a progressive era in are history. Thereafter, many modifications designed at both safeguarding the "due process of law" rights of adolescence, and generating an antipathy to jail amongst minor. This dislike has made juvenile justice system more equivalent to the adult structure, a significant change from what it was intended for in the

The U.S made legal history in 1989 when the world’s first juvenile court opened in Chicago (Rank, J.) Since 1990 many states have also adopted the “get tough” approach to juvenile justice as a response to the increasingly violent crimes committed by children.

There is much debate over whether or not juveniles should ever be tried as adults. Juveniles are defined as children under the age of 18. In the past, juveniles have been tried in a separate juvenile court because of their age. However, trying juveniles as adults for violent crimes is a trend that is on the rise. Age is supposed to be a deterrent for placing those under 18 on trial and giving them stiffer punishments that are often reserved for adults. Many debate whether or not juveniles really should have less severe punishments or if trying some juveniles as adults will lower juvenile crime rates.

The juvenile justice system has long been in debate over whether its focus should be rehabilitation or punishment. From its birth in the early 20th century, the juvenile justice system has changed its focus from punishment to rehabilitation and back many times. Some say the juvenile justice system should be abolished and juveniles tried as adults, yet studies indicate punishment and imprisonment do not rehabilitate juvenile offenders; therefore, the juvenile justice system should remain

Juveniles committing crimes is not a new issued being introduced to society; actually, it has been an issue for centuries. However, the big question is, should juveniles be tried in adult courts? Before answering, take into consideration every possible scenario that could have led them to commit the crime. For instance, were they the leader in the act? Did they participate in the crime? Was the juvenile even aware of what was taking place? Were they peer pressured? Did they have any other choice at the time? There are so many other questions we could consider when making a decision here.

Within the past decade,nearly every single state has altered its juvenile program in reply to observed increases in serious, persistent, and pugnacious youth crime. These adjustments weaken the power of juvenile courts as legal decisions and statutory adjustments transfer more youths from juvenile courts to criminal courts so that youthful offenders can be sentenced as adults. Corrections to juvenile sentencing regulations perpetuate the punitiveness of sanctions made accessible to juvenile court judges. Supplementary strategies seek to "combine"or merge, juvenile and criminal court power and sentencing power above pugnacious youthful offenders. These "get tough" strategies alter the numbers and varieties of juveniles confined in mature and juvenile correctional abilities and pose fundamental setbacks for administrators in both systems; accelerate the functioning within the procedural integrity amid the juvenile and convict justice systems; and corrode the rationale for a distinct juvenile court.

When thinking of reforming the juvenile justice system one has to think; what can we do to make this better for everyone involve? There are some programs that can be implemented when trying to make a change in the juvenile system. The main thing is getting parents or the guardian more involved in the child’s whereabouts. Secondly the community where the youth will have a place to go and have something more constructive to do to keep them out of trouble. Law enforcement can get involved in giving ride along and having visits to the local jails or prisons from the youth to talk to some of the inmates. Crime in life isn’t racist at all it has a no age limit, no certain gender and no social status for most of those whom decide to partake in a criminal activity. From the beginning juveniles have been an issue with law enforcement, the question has always arisen of whom will take control without cruel and unusual punishment and assist with the rehabilitation and prevention future crime actions.

The juvenile justice system is similar to the criminal justice system. This system is where juveniles are processed, and may be arrested after referrals for juvenile delinquency. Juvenile justice is very different in every state and can be very similar as well because every system has limited jurisdiction and that most focus on the offenders and not their offenses. Therefore, there are 51 juvenile justice systems in the United States. The United States has the juvenile justice system because children are very different than adults – in that they can be better receptive for change and also being easier to rehabilitate. Moreover, the main goal of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation (Juvenile Law Center). The juvenile justice system is made up of police, courts, corrections, probation and parole services, as well as community-based programs to name a few (book).

Laws tend to make the lives of every individual safer and pleasant. The subject of this paper focuses on evaluating and identifying the Constitutional safeguards within the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments of the United States Constitution. How these safeguards to the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment will apply to juvenile and adult court proceedings. Finally, this paper will focus the impact that these safeguards, such as speedy trial, Miranda warning, exclusionary rule, and right to counsel will have on the day- to- day operation for juvenile and adult courts.

Most people feel that, until recently, the juvenile justice system served our country and our children very well. Beginning in the 1970's, the nature of juvenile crime became different. Juvenile crime grew more common and more violent, and the system was not prepared.