Juvenile Court System Analysis

Placing a juvenile in a detention center early in the court process increases the risk that youths will be found to be delinquent and damage their prospects for future success. A majority of the youths that are placed in these facilities pose little or no threat to the public and essentially do not need to be there. This portion of the juvenile court process is detrimental to the future and mental aspects of a youth’s life. We desperately need to change the way that we handle the juvenile court system because we are only reinforcing the delinquent behavior that these youths have been exposed to. We need to focus on the rehabilitation and prevention efforts for these youths not the punishment aspect and until then (insert a better ending).

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 juvenile justice system was fashioned in the late 1800s; restructuring policies in the United States concerning adolescent offenders was a part of a progressive era in are history. Thereafter, many modifications designed at both safeguarding the "due process of law" rights of adolescence, and generating an antipathy to jail amongst minor. This dislike has made juvenile justice system more equivalent to the adult structure, a significant change from what it was intended for in the

As a contrast, there are many differences between the adult and juvenile justice system. These differences consist of the right to a jury, the right to post bail, leniency of evidence, different court proceedings, the right to a public trial, and rehabilitation efforts. As for the purpose of this paper, we will dissect the differences of the two systems. Many appeals have been filed under the notion that a right to a jury should be upheld for juvenile offenders. The courts have voted against this action time and time again. These appeals are made on the assumption that, as noted earlier, adult crimes should be tried as adult crimes. However, the court rules on this matter while keeping the rehabilitation efforts of the juvenile courts in mind, as opposed to the more punitive measures. Their desire to see kids treated as kids are defined with their upholding of the law, and pushing rehabilitation to its max. But should rehabilitation be the prime focus when the act is of adult capacity; even in a child’s body? I do not think so. What are the percentages of rehabilitation success with adults for committed capital offenses? How are they going to differ when a child partakes in them? I think there is a

In earlier Colonial days, children and teenagers behaving antisocially or found to have committed a crime were sent through the adult justice system, even children as young as seven-years old who were accused of doing wrong were put into prison with adults. But, over the centuries the juvenile justice system has changed tremendously from imprisoning children within the adult system. There are five periods of juvenile justice which changed the process of juveniles begin incarcerated with adults; the Puritan Period, the Refuge Period, Juvenile Court Period, Juvenile Rights Period, and the Crime Control Period.

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.

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

This paper takes a brief look at the history and evolution of the juvenile justice system in the United States. In recent years there has been an increase of juvenile cases being transferred into the adult court system. This paper will also look at that process and the consequences of that trend.

JUVENILE TRANSFER TO ADULT COURTS A Look at the Prototypes for Dangerousness, Sophistication-Maturity, and Amenability to Treatment Through A Legal Lens http://psycnet.apa.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/journals/law/8/4/373.html

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.

If I was the state senator for Tennessee, my state, what changes to the law concerning juvenile records and their accessibility would I make? One fundamental reason for juvenile courts is confidentiality. The juvenile system was put into play to rehabilitate not stigmatization, to deal with the mistakes and indiscretion away from public scrutiny. Also, some agreed that society should have legitimate interest in knowing about juveniles to protect and prevent danger from happen to them (Elrod & Ryder, , 2014) . The juvenile system pushes the dirt under the rug of the content of what happened to juveniles, meaning the floor is cleaned once they leave the courtroom. How would I handle this?

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.