Juvenile Court Essay

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?

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.

The main reason for having the two different justice systems is that children cannot be held to the same punishment levels as an adult. Even though a child has committed the same crime an adult may commit, not every child has a mental understanding to make mature adult like decisions. The juvenile

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

The juvenile justice system is a foundation in society that is granted certain powers and responsibilities. It faces several different tasks, among the most important is maintaining order and preserving constitutional rights. When a juvenile is arrested and charged with committing a crime there are many different factors that will come in to play during the course of his arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing, and rehabilitation process. This paper examines the Juvenile Justice System’s court process in the State of New Jersey and the State of California.

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.

“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

Depending on which side you view the transfer issue from, the consequences can be positive or negative. On the positive side the juvenile is afforded more constitutional rights in the adult system, such as a trial by jury. For some juveniles it could mean a chance of having their charges dismissed (Seigel & Welsh, 2011). By transferring juveniles into the adult system you are more likely to have violent offenders taken off the streets and given tougher sentences for violent crimes than they would have

Although based on the adult criminal justice system, the juvenile justice process works differently. Juveniles can end up in court by way of arrest, truancy or for curfew violations or running away. A youth may also be referred to the juvenile court system by school officials or a parent or guardian for being continuously disobedient. The juvenile justice process involves several different steps including intake, detention, adjudication, disposition and aftercare following release from a juvenile correctional facility. In this paper we will breakdown the numerous steps involved in the juvenile justice process as well as compared some

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).

The rising viewpoint of the child savers was that of parens patriae which said that the state had an assenting duty to get involved and care for the less fortunate kids. In 1899, the first court devoted to hearing cases with juvenile delinquents was developed by the Illinois Legislature. The procedures in the juvenile court were much different from those of the criminal courts. The child would be accused of a crime they committed, but they were offered help, treatment, and direction (Myers, 2008). Juvenile hearings were held in private and the juvenile’s records were kept sealed to avoid the disgrace of a criminal conviction. Since the juvenile courts rejected punishment, they were allowed to have jurisdiction on things adult courts did not consider crimes. These offenses could be anything including truancy, disobedience, bad language, immorality, and vagrancy. Under parens patriae, the juvenile court was allowed to use wide range discretion to resolve the troubles of juvenile offenders and rejected the official procedures of the adult

Several studies conducted to determine impacts of transfers of cases from juvenile courts to adult criminal courts for trial

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.