Introduction. Since The Early 1990S The Transfer Of Juvenile

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.

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.

Per Klug (2001) by 1925, 48 states had juvenile courts closely following the Chicago Juvenile Court. But “changes were made when the policy makers and the public were dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the treatment techniques available to juvenile justice practitioners” resulting in waiver situations instead of adjudication (Klug, 2001, p. 100). The juvenile court system started moving away from rehabilitating a child, instead it was looking like the adult criminal justice

To answer the research question whether waiver laws are consistent with the purpose of having a separate juvenile justice system, the research suggests that the answer is no. Primarily, they are not consistent with the, “best interest of the child” mantra that shaped the juvenile justice system (Flesch, 2004). It seems that prosecutorial and executive waiver laws are not consistent with the Supreme Courts decision to safe guard the child and society by ensuring that each child has a waiver hearing that accurately accesses the child’s ability to be rehabilitated by the juvenile justice system (McMillin, 2014). Instead, the waiver has been used as a vacuum to suck up non violent and violent offenders that would be better suited to stay in the

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

The situation whereby a juvenile offender is tried as though they were an adult is known as a trial as an adult. It was actuated in the 1990s after a high number of reported brutal adolescent offenses (Gainsborough & Young, 2000). Many of the young teenagers were reassigned from juvenile to criminal courts to answer to their charges. This action is questionable, because of concerns about the contrast between the mental and moral abilities of adolescents versus grown-ups and the simplicity with which adolescent cases can be reassigned. Supporters of the dissolution of the juvenile court, on the other hand, contend that indicting minor wrongdoers in criminal court offers better assurance to society and considers minors in charge of their doing.

At the end of the 19th Century, the U.S. made legal history when the world's first juvenile court opened in Chicago(Horwitz-Prisco). The court was founded on two basic principles. First, juveniles lacked the maturity to take responsibility for their actions the way adults could. Second, because their character was not yet fully developed, they could be rehabilitated more successfully than adult criminals. More than a century later, these principles remain the benchmarks of juvenile justice in the United States(Horowitz-Prisco).In recent years, however, a growing number of juvenile criminals are being tried as adults. In part this stems from public outrage against children who are committing violent crimes. Many young children in America are

We should be cautious about the application of juvenile transfer/waiver because it is controversial with the public. We have to gain the sense of the public’s willingness to transfer juveniles to adult court. There are many variables that the public have taken into consideration that may be susceptible about the methods of juvenile transfer. Those variables are demographic characteristics of the offender, victim, and respondent. According to the article, the findings indicated that the age of the offender and the seriousness of the offense influence citizen’s desire to transfer juvenile to adult court. The problem is that the increased juvenile transfer doesn’t necessarily decrease the crime in juveniles.

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

“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

In the early nineteenth century juveniles were treated the same as adults when it came to the legal system. We did not have separate courts or jails for juveniles and they would often receive the same punishments as adults that had committed crimes. “At the beginning of the

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.

The Juvenile System has been around for a long time. The primary reason behind separating Juvenile from adult criminals is quite simple; the judicial system believes that the children are less culpable for their irresponsive behavior and they could easily be reformed as compared to adult offenders. The crucial role of the judicial system is to critically investigate, diagnose, and recommend treatments for the Juveniles rather than accrediting them. However, because of the increasing number of juvenile arrest for crimes committed by persons considered as a child, the attention that the given to a crime involving juveniles, the decreasing trust to the juvenile system itself and the lauder roar of the society for a safer place to live in,

The nation’s first juvenile court was established in 1899 as a part of the Juvenile Court Act. It was founded on three principles: juveniles are not ready to be held accountable for their actions, are not yet fully developed, and can rehabilitate easier than adults. In all but three states, anyone charged with committing a criminal act before his or her eighteenth birthday is considered a juvenile offender. Now more than ever, states and countries have begun to question the reliability of the juvenile court. Some believe the juvenile court system should be abolished because of its insufficient gain to the community. Others believe children are not fully capable to understand the degree of their actions and the consequences that come from them and believe that juvenile courts are a necessity in the court system.

The juvenile justice system was founded on the belief that children are different from adults; therefore, the justice system and corrections sanctions for juveniles should acknowledge the differences. “Rising juvenile crime rates during the 1970s and 1980s spurred state legislatures across the country to exclude or transfer a significant share of offenders under the age of eighteen to the jurisdiction of the criminal court” (Fagan, 2008). The acknowledgement of these differences should be the bases for a proper juvenile justice system. The examination of the juvenile justice’s systems history, trends, and causation theories will provide an insight into the future of the juvenile justice system.