Juvenile Court Case Study

There are many similarities and differences in the juvenile and adult justice systems. When a juvenile is arrested and charged with a crime there are many factors that play a role out during the course of an arrest, trail, conviction and sentencing. Years ago all criminals were tried as adults and there was no distinction made between adult and juvenile. Currently, the law has come to realize the need to categorize the two as they are two different populations with very different physical and psychological needs needs. According to Bartol, “juveniles, like adults, also may be provided with intermediate sanctions, which are less restrictive than residential placement but more restrictive than the standard probation under which the juvenile remains in his or her own home with conditions attached” (Bartol, 2011) very similar to adult offenders.

Juvenile cases are transferred into adult criminal court through three different processes: the judicial waiver, the statutory exclusion/ legislative waiver, and direct file/ prosecutorial discretion. The judicial waiver is a process in which an accused youth can be transferred into adult court pending a waiver trial. During the trial, a juvenile judge uses a set of criteria combined with their discretion to decide whether the accused is able to be successfully rehabilitated (Myers, 2001)). The statutory exclusion/ legislative waiver is a method that causes certain criminal acts committed by juveniles to be excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction (Myers, 2001). However, the criminal acts that are not covered by juvenile courts vary from state to state. Lastly, direct file/prosecutorial discretion allots prosecutors the power to file juvenile cases directly in juvenile or adult courts (Myers, 2001). Hence, the power to transfer that once resided solely in the hands of judges, now rests in the discretion of prosecutors.

Once a minor has been transferred and convicted in a California court of criminal jurisdiction, subsequent charges will be filed in adult criminal court (Center for Juvenile & Criminal Justice). The California state legislature has recently modified the juvenile law so that a minor can be transferred from juvenile court to the adult court and tried as adult in specified serious or violent felony cases, even if the minor is as young as 14. In most juvenile crime cases a judge will determine when it is appropriate to make such a transfer, however, in certain serious juvenile criminal cases the prosecutor may directly charge a minor in adult court. (Neubauer, 446)

A juvenile can be transferred automatically be transferred to adult court on the grounds of once an adult, always an adult. Due to previous charges, transferring to adult court terminates juvenile court jurisdiction over a juvenile for any offense unless the transfer is followed by an acquittal or a dismissal of the charge that resulted in the transfer. Within 90 days a juvenile is charged with an offense and no less than 14 days prior to the transfer hearing, the decision on whether or not the state will seek transfer has to be made,

b. Transfer- Transfer occurs when jurisdiction over a juvenile case is turned over to a criminal court. The waiver or transfer of jurisdiction from juvenile court to criminal court is predicated on the assumption that some juveniles are not appropriate for processing in juvenile court and can be more effectively dealt with by criminal courts.

The juvenile justice system has gone through many transformations and changes in sentencing guidelines since its inception. These guidelines were put in place to establish a process through which juveniles are guaranteed resources for a chance at rehabilitation and integration back into society as a law-abiding citizen. Juvenile courts have a wide range of sentencing options which they can impose on juveniles or youth offenders found guilty of a criminal offense. The automatic transfer law is the policy that is used most commonly, in regards to transferring a juvenile to criminal (adult) court.

Court systems are left with difficult decisions. A controversial decision courts are faced with today is whether or not juveniles are to be tried as adults. The increasing number of incarcerated children in adult jails raises questions as to why. Adolescents sentenced to prison are more likely to be abused, commit suicide, or reoffend, thus committing more serious offenses. The statutes requiring juveniles to enter adult prisons are inhumane and in-just. Nevertheless, sentencing children to adult prisons continues regularly today. When adolescents commit crimes, they should be tried as juveniles rather than adults.

In the last 42 years little to no changes have been made to correct the standards that govern punitive measures towards juvenile delinquency. Today juvenile law is governed by state and many states have enacted a juvenile code. However, in numerous cases, juveniles are transferred to adult court when juvenile courts waive or relinquish jurisdiction. Adolescents should not be tried in the adult court system or sentenced to adult penitentiary's on account of: teen brains are not mature which causes a lack of understanding towards the system, incarceration in an adult facility increases juvenile crime, and children that are sentenced to adult prison are vulnerable to abuse and rape.

In the early 1900s a ‘get tough” approach was adopted by many states. In the get tough approach juvenile prosecutors were given the option of reducing charges to keep the child in juvenile court. Adult prosecutors were also given the option of sending the young accused felons back to juvenile court. In 2003, several states had adopted a legislation that allowed more children to be tried as adults. All states had the rights, only under certain circumstances, to charge juveniles as

The border between juvenile justice and criminal justice did not endure the juvenile court’s first century. By the 1980s, there was general disappointment with both the means and the ends of normal juvenile justice. As with every other social repair efforts, it is difficult to say whether frustration with juvenile justice was born of erroneous concept or of wretched execution. The administering accepted by justice policy, however, was unmistakable. Juvenile courts began to adopt the sentiment and standpoint of criminal courts. Many States redesigned their laws to curtail the confidentiality of juvenile court proceedings and juvenile court records. Most States increased the legal etiquette used in juvenile court and shifted the objective of the juvenile justice process away from individualized intervention. Instead, juvenile courts and juvenile justice agencies began to focus on public safety and criminal accountability. In addition, nearly All States enacted laws to toss more youths to criminal court where they could be tried and punished as adults. In the span of a single century the American justice system had favorably embraced and then largely abandoned the concept of using a alternative legal system for crimes committed by the young. No single concern in juvenile justice has captured the attention of the public or of policymakers like criminal court transfer. Conflicts over the transfer issue command the clearest and most candid dispute over the juvenile-criminal

One of my sources I'm going to use is the article “Trying Juveniles as Adults: An Analysis of State Transfer Laws and Reporting” written by Patrick Griffin. This paper caught my attention with the amount of visuals this paper had. This paper gave me graphs that showed me how states have different laws about how a juvenile can be tried within the states. Another thing that caught my attention from this paper was how transfer laws are when a court put a juvenile to be tried in an adult court. This law also is different from one state to another. They all fall under three basic categories. These categories are Judicial Waiver Laws, Concurrent Judicial Laws and Statutory Exclusion Laws. One fact that shocked me was in 1994 the number of violent

The transfer of juveniles to the adult has become more prevalent (Kupchik, 2003). Transfers are due to a number of reasons. The differing age boundary among states also is partially at fault for the increase of juveniles being transferred to the adult criminal justice system (Fagan, 2008). The juvenile justice system is not always effective in handling juvenile offenders that commit serious violent crimes. Some offenders are transferred over the adult criminal justice system to serve justice when there is no hope for rehabilitation or when they think a juvenile offender would be better suited in the criminal justice system. The transfer of juvenile offenders to the adult criminal justice system is also used as a sort of deterrence method. The

Youths are admitted to juvenile facilities for a broad range of issues, including status offenses, dependency, and criminal offenses. Juvenile courts have the power to relinquish its jurisdiction and have some young offenders tried in grown up courts. In Kent vs. United States, the Supreme Court held that where juvenile court jurisdiction is waived as a result of judicial waiver, a hearing with the essentials of due process must be provided, when jurisdiction is waived due to judicial waiver (Wizner, 1984). This case involved a sixteen year old juvenile that was tried and convicted in criminal court as an adult. Although his crimes was as severe as an adult (rape, burglary and robbery), the higher court saw it fitting to create a due process system for every court to be mindful of when allowing a youth to be transferred to grown up court by waiving their jurisdiction. Although it was “written in stone” many states did not find it necessary to abide by the rules and created their own legislative transfer (waiver). As a matter of fact there were jurisdictions where some district attorneys made transfer decisions that were not in-line with the safeguards mentioned in Kent vs. Unites States. The presence of this issue could rest in the fact that although the waiver 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 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.

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.