Judicial Waiver, And Statutory Exclusion

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.

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

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.

In the United States, though different states have different transfer laws regarding ways a juvenile could be transferred to criminal court, most states used one of these transfer laws; once adult/always adult laws, reverse waiver laws and blended sentencing laws. Under once adult/always adult laws, a juvenile who have been tried as adults will be prosecuted in criminal court for any subsequent offenses. Reverse waiver laws, on the other hand, makes it possible for juvenile who is being prosecuted as an adult in criminal court to appeal their case to be transferred to juvenile court. A compromise between those who wanted rehabilitation and those who wanted punishment for the juvenile offender, blended sentencing laws appear to be the law that could determine the appropriate Court of Jurisdiction for juveniles.

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

A juvenile waiver is occurs when a judge transfers a juvenile into the adult court system. This method releases the juvenile from any protection the youth would have under the juvenile court system. At this point the child is put through the same court process an adult offender would face. In most states the average age a youth would be set forth into the adult system is 17; however in some cases children as young as 13 have faced adult trials. Normally a waiver into the adult courts is put into effect because of a long history of offenses by the juvenile or if the crime is well thought-out to be serious or severely heinous.

Today, the juvenile system primary goals are crime reduction and rehabilitation. The juvenile officials must assess whether youthful offenders are likely to commit crimes in the future and whether they can benefit from interventions. If these kids cannot benefit, then they will most like end up a delinquent. In most states delinquency is defined as the commission of a criminal act by a child who was under the age of 18 at that time (Virginia Rules). Most states allow youth to remain under the supervision of the juvenile court until the age of 21, but this depends on the type of crime that was committed. There has been many times where a juvenile case was transferred to an adult criminal court. This would have to be done thru a process called a waiver. A waiver is when a judge waives the protections that the juvenile court provides (Larry J. Siegel). Cases that

According to Fagan (2008) judicial waiver is primary process in the juvenile court in which the judge has the authority to waive juvenile court jurisdiction and transfer the offender’s case to adult (criminal) court. According to Griffin, et al., (2011) the waiver laws allow the juvenile to be prosecuted in criminal court. In these cases a formal hearing is conducted while the case is still in the juvenile court. During this hearing based off of the evidence and the charges a judge can approve the waiver for transfer to adult court. Fagan (2008) stated that judicial waiver is a common transfer law that is used by forty-seven states in American. In my opinion this system works similarly to how the juvenile system was designed. The judicial waiver process begins in the juvenile justice system which operates in an informal manner to decide if the juvenile offenders will be waived into the adult criminal justice system. According Fagan (2008) following Kent v. United States all waiver statutes that were designated must be met prior to the judge consideration of a waiver to adult court. Conditions that must be met prior to wavier consideration of the judge are generally a minimum age requirement, a specific type offense, and a prior record of delinquency.

There are three ways cases are sent to adult court, there is concurrent jurisdiction where certain cases can be tried in either juvenile or adult court, statutory exclusion, where certain offenses are automatically tried in adult court and judicial waiver where a hearing is held to decide whether the case will be transferred (Seigel & Welsh, 2011). While the process does differ from State to State there are some basic guidelines “…states that have transfer hearings provide a legitimate transfer hearing, sufficient notice to the child’s family and defense attorney, the right to counsel, and a statement of the reason for the court order regarding transfer” Seigel & Welsh, 2011).

Some jurisdictions require the child to be over a certain age and charged with a felony, while others permit waiver if the child is over a certain age regardless of offense. Still yet, others have no conditions. Juveniles can be tried in all stated in one of three ways: 1. Concurrent Jurisdiction: the prosecutor has the discretion of filing charge offenses in either juvenile or criminal court. 2. Excluded offenses: the legislature excludes from juvenile court jurisdiction certain offenses that are either very minor, such as traffic or fishing violations, or very serious, such as murder or rape. 3. Judicial waiver: the juvenile court waives its jurisdiction and transfers the case to criminal court. Barry Feld, Juvenile Law Scholar, suggests that waivers to adult court be mandatory for serious crimes. Those espousing the crime control model believe that the overriding purpose is protection of the public, deterrence or violent juvenile behavior, and the incarceration of serious youthful offenders in the adult criminal justice system. The rehabilitative justice model view this as an attack on the juvenile justice system, but crime control advocates consider such steps a necessary response to a rising juvenile violence rate. Life in Adult Prison The Southwest Multi County Corrections Center, a two-story adult jail is the largest maximum-security program for juveniles under federal authority. The BOP pays

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 psychology 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.

However, the transfer laws do not lower the juvenile crime rates. For example, in New York a law that sent violent juvenile offenders to criminal courts did not have an effect on violent juvenile crime. Serious crimes presented before the adult criminal court included murder, assault, burglary, rape and arson. In other cases, young offenders become aware of the consequences once tried in the adult courts. When committing the crimes, they think that they will receive light punishments imposed by juvenile courts but when referred to adult courts, the youth tend to become more responsible. Therefore, prior knowledge of resultant punishment plays role in crime reduction among the youths. Subjecting the young offenders to face adult courts brings to their attention the seriousness of the matter at hand (Jeff, page 8).

Factors such as type of offense, the age of the juvenile offender, and criminal history take

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.

For example, in 1996 the legislature in the state of Missouri lowered the minimum age for transfer from fourteen to twelve (Zierdt, 1999, p.419). States in favor of this kind of shift justify the transfer because chronic juvenile offenders in rehabilitation centers will likely disrupt the reformation of other juvenile offenders as they are considered as a bad influence on them. It is thus, considered that in not transferring the juveniles in adult prisons, these chronic juvenile offenders disrupts the growth and development of other teens undergoing rehabilitation.