Juvenile Criminal Cases

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.

It is the very nature of the criminal justice system to hold those accountable for their actions. In the adult courts the purpos is to be judged by a jury of our peers and held accountable for crimes committed. There must be consequences faced for criminal actions. The adult and juvenile courts handle the proceedings quite differently. The adult court has a defendant whom appears for a bail hearing. The defendant than is sent to trial in front of a jury of his peers, based

Murderers, rapists, and other criminals are being released from jail every day after serving only extremely short sentences. These criminals are given special treatment because they are delinquents. Some are given new identities and are allowed to live their lives in peaceful bliss, all while the victims and their families are left to suffer forever. With courts and juvenile rights advocates believing that these delinquents deserve second chances, they are allowing criminals to walk the streets, live as our neighbors, and in many instances, commit additional crimes. While some disagree that juvenile offenders should be tried as adults, there should not be any special privileges for the atrocious crimes they commit, because they may think they

A New Jersey high school teacher, discovered a fourteen year old freshman student (Tracy Lois Odem) and her acquaintance smoking cigarettes in the restroom. Which, is a violation of school policy taken to the principle's office. The Assistant Vice Principal questioned the student about her smoking the cigarettes. With her response, claiming that she did not smoke the cigarettes. Demanding to see her purse in attempt to find cigarettes, rolling paper which, can be used to smoke marijuana. Further into the search, he found a small plastic bag containing marijuana, a pipe, money, and a piece of paper with names of students who owed Tracy Lois Odem money. Which, implicated T.l.O was dealing in marijuana. The school administrator contacted the police

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is clearly an effective bill. Since the introduction of YCJA, crime for youth has been decreasing at a rapid rate. (Show graph) In this graph you can see that since the start of the bill (which was introduced in 2003) there has been a huge dip in “Total youth court cases”. Following that statistic the other categories have notably been decrease along with it. How do they achieve this? The YCJA guides youth. Instead of just tossing them like they are some criminal that serve their time and head off, the bill provides things like counselling and community service to teach them their wrong doing and send them off as useful citizens that's shouldn't be coming in and out of prison constantly. Witout a doubt this would

The American juvenile justice system had developed over the past century with a number of variables that makes it different from the adult criminal justice process. Juvenile justice advocates supports the differences on the youthful offenders. Juvenile crime policy over the course of the twentieth century talks about transferring the law’s conceptions of young offenders. Starting from the nineteenth century, many of the youths were tried and punished as adults. However, treatment of juveniles in the United States started to change. Reformers created a way where juveniles can be housed in special facilities. Their mission was to protect juvenile offenders by separating them from adults. Juvenile justice system focuses primarily on rehabilitation and help youths avoid a future of crime. Since then there have been many milestones and historical evolutions that can make juvenile justice an effective system.

The youth will enter a plea agreement. Normally a plea agreement depends solely on the juvenile’s willingness to follow the set out conditions. Such as a part of the plea agreement could be that the juvenile could have to obey curfews, pay the victim for damages or attend counseling. If there is not plea agreement then the judge could divert the case, which means, the judge keeps jurisdiction over the case while the child goes through a recommended program like, counseling or community service. If the child doesn’t complete the program the court could bring back formal charges. If the case is severe then the case will go to trial, in a juvenile case it is call an adjudicatory hearing. Just like an adult criminal trial, both sides will present their evidence and argue the case. Most states the cases are only heard by a judge not by a jury. If the judge determines the youth is delinquent or guilt, then a probation officer will evaluate the child. The judge will then decide the best course of punishment or rehabilitation, including, counseling, locked up in a juvenile detention facility, pay back the victim or probation. The judge could also order the child to return to court periodically to see if the child’s behavior is

The evaluation of success for the purpose of justice is worth seeing the adolescent’s age to be no longer considered a juvenile. Has society dealt with the crime correctly or does the cost for said decision outweigh the punishment the juvenile deserves? Is this the right direction? The struggling issue the legal system is navigating through leads into a decision pointing the said juvenile in the right direction by guidance and education or destroying the juvenile by matching a harsher punishment to a particular crime. In order to make the appropriate decision, a list of “pros” and “cons” would be able to offer some assistance. The “pro” side for a juvenile court system is direction and guidance. This court system sees the lack of maturity and discretion of this youth. This should give cause of seeing the youth as “different” than an adult and should be held less blameworthy for the crime committed. This court’s main objective is to handle the youth through policed courses and correctional involvement for the purpose of rehabilitation. The court focuses on the “age” instead of the “crime.” Transferring to the adult courts, the purpose is to bring harsher sentences for the crime committed as well as the slim chance of “getting off” the hook by attending counseling or other step-process program. Adult courts also see the victims and their families need relief for the crime committed against them. Adult courts do offer the juvenile the majority

The 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri/ Family Court- Juvenile Division is located in the city of St. Louis, Mo. The participants in this study are temporarily housed in the juvenile detention facility and are held on charges of allegedly committing a crime. The typical age ranging is between 11-17 years old, however, many are awaiting their day in court to determine their adjudication status by the presiding judge. Once, their status has been determined based on the evidence presented and the judge’s decision. The youth in question shall either be detained, released or placed in a court appointed program, which positively serves as a holistic approach in potentially addressing the concerns, that may have contributed to the adolescent being

The necessity for development of a separate court system designed for punishing juvenile offenders came about with the idea that juveniles are “less culpable” than adult offenders, and therefore more adaptable to rehabilitation from their delinquent misbehavior. Building on this idea, juvenile court was established to offer intervention, rehabilitation, and protective supervision for young offenders, unlike the general idea of criminal courts aimed at punishing, incapacitating, and generating retribution. (Bishop & Frazier, 1991)

The first case I chose was Kent v. United States (1966). This case was about a 16 year old boy named Morris Kent Jr. Young Mr. Kent who was involved in a lot of incidents which involved robberies and rape was questioned by the police of his connection with a lady who robbed and raped in her apartment where his fingerprints were found. Kent admitted to some of the involvement. When he went to juvenile court where they waived jurisdiction and he would be tried as an adult. Kent was charged in a district court where a jury found him guilty and sentenced him to thirty to ninety years in prison. Kent's attorney petitioned the court and the U.S. court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the decision although the juvenile court judge

A juvenile offender has committed the crime of Especially Aggravated Robbery. The juvenile court has petitioned to have the case transferred to adult court; the petition is granted. While the juvenile offender is awaiting trial, they become of adult age. The juvenile is now an adult and is released on bond to their mother. While out on bond the defendant commits several aggravated robberies and unfortunately a victim is killed. The defendant goes on the run for a few months but is later located by the U.S. Marshalls. When the defendant is brought back to court to face their previous charge of especially aggravated robbery, the judge is made aware of the defendant’s pending charges.

In the first place, exchange to grown-up court modifies the legitimate procedure by which a minor is attempted. Criminal court depends on an antagonistic model, while juvenile court is based, from a certain perspective, on a more agreeable model. This distinction in the atmospheres of adolescent versus grown-up courts is noteworthy in light of the fact that it is misty at what age people have adequate comprehension of the consequences of the antagonistic procedure and the diverse personal stakes of prosecutors, resistance lawyers, and judges. Youthful litigants might just not have what it takes- - by the guidelines set up in the Constitution- - to be ready to guard themselves in criminal court. Second, the lawful gauges connected in grown-up and adolescent courts are distinctive. For instance, skill to stand trial is assumed among grown-up respondents unless they experience the ill effects of a genuine maladjustment or significant mental impediment. We don't know whether the assumption of skill holds for adolescents, who, even without mental hindrance or dysfunctional behavior, may need adequate fitness to take an interest in the adjudicative procedure. (Social Issues

A case that proceeds for formal processing by juvenile court usually involves a prosecuting attorney and juvenile court judge. Some courts oversee only the adjudication process, while others provide a full array of preadjudication and post disposition services (Widom, 2001). After the adjudication hearing, the youth either is determined to be a delinquent or is released. If the court finds the youth delinquent, it makes a disposition. Usually, this involves placing the youth on informal supervision or formal community supervision or in a residential facility (Crowe, 2002). Dispositions include commitment to an institution, placement in a group or foster home or other residential facility, probation, referral to an outside agency or treatment

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.