Juvenile Justice System. The Federal Juvenile Delinquency

Kent held that juveniles were entitled to a hearing, representation by counsel, access to information upon which the waiver decision was based, and a statement of reasons justifying the waiver decision. It included the sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his or her home life, environmental situation, emotional attitude, and pattern of living. These rights we made so that the justice courts can provide guidance and rehabilitation for the juvenile also with protection for society. There are some juveniles out there who are extremely dangerous and do not wish to change the way they are living their life.

Five major court cases that influenced our treatment of juveniles today include Kent v. United States (1966), In re Gault (1967), In re Winship (1970), McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) and Breen v. Jones (1975). Kent v. United States (1966) set the standards for transfers. In this case, the judge ruled Kent to adult court without consulting with the child, the child’s mother or attorney. It was this case that determined the attorney has the right to review documentation presented by the probation officer. Thanks to In re Gault (1967), juveniles how have a right to due process during any proceedings in which a juvenile is facing institutional confinement. It was also outlined in In re Gault (1967) exactly what a juveniles rights are during the entire process. Key rights are being notified of the charges brought up against them, right to counsel and cross-examination of witnesses by the attorney’s.

Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 [1966]). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.

Constitutional guidelines: While the Constitution does not specifically mention crimes by juveniles, In re Gault (1967), via the Supreme Court allows for fairness to juveniles within the court system as they are given the same inalienable rights by God as everyone has and they have to

The juvenile victim justice system is divided into the criminal justice system and the child protection system. Although its two different system, they work together to ensure the victims safety. The criminal justice system focuses on the crime itself whereas the child protection system focus on helping the child. After the initial report, a screening is done to see if there is enough information. If there is enough information, the investigation then starts. Child protective service will notify the police if there is any problem. The child might be taken for medical examination and mental health evaluation. To ensure the safety of the child, the investigators can take them into custody. Then the court will decide who to give the parental rights

“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

With this act only the most serious and violent offenders would be kept in custody. The youth with misdemeanors would be diverted into specialized programs working to manage their core problems. There would also be alternatives to detention through initiatives by minimizing the use of secure detention centers while preserving the community, reduce racial and ethical disputes, minimize the re-arrest and failure to appear rates pending adjudication. Try and encourage the juveniles so they know and care about their future to be positive. “There are five approaches to punishment they are deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, retribution, and vengeance (Nina).” Deterrence is used to guide a person from committing a criminal act out of fear of punishment. Rehabilitation is to counter criminal recidivism. Incapacitation is keeping the offender off the streets while removing the ability for him to commit future crimes. In retribution the punishment should fit the crime and the criminal should give something up for the

In reviewing the reading assignment, I do think the U.S. Juvenile Justice System serves the purpose for serious felonies. According to an article, the juvenile justice system also provides ways to help with skill development, habilitation, rehabilitation, addressing treatment needs as well as a way to successful reintegration of youth into the community (Youth.gov., n.d.) When a crime is committed, there should be consequences of his or her actions, however I do not think jail is always the answer, especially for the ones that are not adults. I think he or she should be mental evaluate to determine his or her mental state and then put into a rehabilitation program. Bentham was a theorist that believed and followed utilitarian principles, which

In the 1960s, several imperative cases opposed the behavior of youths in the court system (Koroknay-Palicz, 2016). In re Gault a landmark decision acknowledged that juveniles should be guaranteed a fair trial like adults. In the case of Gault, in 1967, the court concluded that if Gault would have been 18 years of age, at the time he was apprehended, he would have received the same due process rights as an adult (Koroknay-Palicz, 2016). The court also determined that there were legitimate reasons for considering juveniles and adults differently (Koroknay-Palicz, 2016). This 15-year-old juvenile delinquent made a dramatic stain on the juvenile justice system of today. Juveniles who were facing an adjudication of incarceration and delinquency were granted the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (Koroknay-Palicz, 2016).

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).

There would be a constitutional issue because juvenile have certain constitutional rights at negotiation, such as the right to a lawyer and the right to challenge and interrogate witnesses, but they have no right to a trial by jury. The subject of juvenile’s rights is poorly defined in the courts, somewhat because the public as a whole has not decided how much independence to grant juvenile. When most juvenile’s supporters talk about juvenile’s rights, they are not stating to the same rights detained by adults, such as the rights to vote. Instead, they mean that more importance should be placed on juvenile’s standing as “regular persons” eligible of benefits under the law as providing in the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Imagine a nine-year old boy being sent to juvenile detention for stealing a pack of gum. This sounds crazy, right? These kinds of things have happened to young people due to not having the correct due process rights. The due process rights are stated in the fifth amendment and the fourteenth amendment. The due process of law guarantees that the government will use fair treatment in trial, such as right to a speedy, public trial, right to an attorney, and right to trial by jury. Even though some could argue that juveniles should be tried as adults in court, young people should not have the same due process rights as adults because of different brain development and maturity found in youth.

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.

The development of preventive strategies will necessarily follow from an understanding of delinquency's root causes. If social structure is a key factor in the development of juvenile delinquency, then prevention will entail addressing issues regarding place, identity, or socioeconomic status. For example, if poverty is considered a significant causative factor, then taking steps such as providing jobs, job training, and perhaps additional welfare benefits becomes an important social concern. By eliminating poverty, society will thus

Jennifer, every case law in the United States is presided by other case laws. Juveniles transferred to criminal court is very much base on juvenile offenders in early years that were tried as adults. Whether or not the cases were fair is being questioned. I understand that juveniles commit adult crimes; however, juveniles under the age of fourteen, in my opinion, should not be tried as an adult due to their lack of understanding the juvenile court system. There needs to be an end to "totality of the circumstances" in some juvenile offender’s cases. If every juvenile offender's attorney claim age as a “reasonable grounds” to have their case overturned this will become a continuous problem throughout the United States. I understand that juveniles