How Can Juvenile Court Be Separated From Adults

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

By trying juveniles in the adult courts they are forcing them to accept a punishment that does not allow for the nurturing and growth that they need. Putting them in with other adult criminals only makes them more likely to commit severe crimes in the future. Judge Dorn has this

One reason is because a juvenile does not have the level of maturity, thought process, decision-making, experience, or wisdom that an adult has, so they should not be subjected to the harsher adult punishments. Another reason is because juvenile courts decide how best to help juvenile offenders while protecting the interests of the public in maintaining an orderly society. Also, another reason that juvenile courts are need is because a younger offender if given the chance to be rehabilitated instead of harshly punished has a higher chance of change than that of someone set in their ways, which coincides with the presumptions that the juvenile court system follows in regards to juvenile

If adult and juvenile case procedures were the same many juveniles would have criminal records going into adulthood for minor offenses or even just mistakes in judgment that could affect his or her future. Adults have a better understanding of the laws and what is right and wrong in addition the consequences of their choices than juveniles do.

There are times juveniles should not be convicted as adults because sometimes the “crimes” may not harsh enough to be charged as an adult. For example, if a 8 year old saw a gun in their mother's purse and thought it was a toy and grabbed it and began to shoot who would be at fault ? Plus children in adult prisons are 10 times more likely to be taken advantage of in their time. Research shows that children prosecuted in the adult criminal justice system are more likely to reoffend than those held in the juvenile justice

Nowadays, the topic of the Juvenile law system is a very controversial as well as difficult discussion to have. For every court case, trial, and scenario, there are many different circumstances that may affect the outcome. Due to the seriousness of their crimes or even their past offenses, juvenile criminals can sometimes be tried as adults. Personally, in the beginning of this assignment, I could see both sides of the argument. There are many reasons why children under the age of 18 should be tried as children, however, there are more proficient reasons as to why we should do away with juvenile court. Many of my peers do not think this, however, they are keen on keeping children tried as children. I truly cannot fathom the “good” that

In conclusion I feel that by not trying juveniles as adults it is a better outcome for the child and society. We are also giving the juvenile a second chance at the future that everyone

Going back to the early days of American history, there were very little made to distinguish criminal responsibility of children versus that of adults. During this time, juveniles, some young as seven years old could be tried and prosecuted within an adult criminal court. Children would have to stand for trial in court based on the offenses they committed, and could then be sentenced to prison and sometimes possibly even capital punishment. Is this form of justice beneficial to minors, or does it just obstruct their futures?

Imagine sitting in a courtroom, hoping the the judge will not give a harsh sentence. Unfortunately, that’s the case for many juveniles, some as young as 13! A juvenile is subject to a more severe sentence with the limited sentencing available. It is estimated that 250,000 youth are prosecuted as adults, each year. This number should change, as juveniles are not adults, both mentally and physically. Juveniles need an environment surrounded with guiding adults, education and the resources to help them. A juvenile is not an adult, and should not be tried as one.

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.

A juvenile offender should be tried according to his crime. If he has committed a juvenile crime, then juvenile punishment is fitting. However, if he has committed an adult crime, or violent crime,

“The juvenile justice system was first created in the late 1800s to reform United States policies on how to handle youth offenders. Since that time, a number of reforms - aimed at both protecting the "due process of law" rights of youth, and creating an aversion toward jail among the young - have made the juvenile justice system more comparable to the adult system, which is a shift from the United States’ original intent (2008,Lawyer Shop.com).” The

Our current juvenile court system began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The ultimate goal of having a separate court system for juveniles is to rehabilitate young offenders rather than punish them. The court also hopes to deter young offenders from preforming further delinquent behavior. Unlike the adult court system, juveniles do not have the right to a public trial by jury. Instead, they undergo an adjudication hearing where the judge rules whether the juvenile is a delinquent. Since this separation, several studies have been conducted to weigh the benefits and costs; such as effectiveness, efficiency, and cost of resources, of having two court systems. Is the United States juvenile court appropriate or should it be abolished? Abolishing the juvenile court system would mean juveniles and adults would both undergo the same criminal justice system. Rothstein states in his research that juvenile courts are a cost-effective way to handle less serious offenses by children (as cited in Acker, Hendrix, and Hogan, and Kordzek, 2001, p. 200). On the other hand, Robert Dawson (1990) argues that there are not enough legal differences between juvenile and adult courts for there to be a need for a separation, concluding that overlap between both systems is so great that having a juvenile court is unnecessary. Supporting this argument, Barry Feld (1997) calls the two systems “duplicative” (p 69).

I do not think it is a good idea to lock juveniles up in prisons with adults. For a child to set down and plan a murder for instance, there would have to be some kind of deep emotional problem. On the other side of this, if the child knows right from wrong and he can sit down and plan a murder, then you could say if he is old enough to kill someone then he is old enough to die. The juvenile criminal is rooted much deeper than right from wrong. It starts back from when they are small children. Most of them are usually outsiders or outcasts. Who can you hold fault for that other than society? If juveniles don't fit in with the popular kids in school they are considered an

In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While