Juvenile Transfers To Criminal Court Essay

The relevant legislation that has been implemented, (Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987), has addressed issues that young people face. However, rights for young people still need to be addressed. Doli Incapax, The Children’s Court and Legal are measures taken to protect young offenders in regards to the criminal justice system. Ensuring that the child’s rights are protected there have been legislations passed to guarantee the enforceability of this alternative methods. Young people are treated differently to adults in the criminal justice system for three major reasons. They are; they prevent children and young people from being exploited, protect them from making uniformed decisions and protect others from being disadvantaged by dealing with a person that is a

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.

The movement to separate children from adults in the court system can be traced back to English common law, just like most of America’s criminal justice system. English lawyer William Blackstone had a significant influence on the separation of Juvenile and adult courts. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, that was first published in the late 1760’s, was widely read and well-regarded by the founders of America (History of Juvenile Justice). In Blackstone’s book, he identified individuals who were considered incapable of committing crimes (History of Juvenile Justice). Two requirement needed to be met in order for someone to commit a crime. First, the individual had to have a “vicious will”, or the intent to commit a crime (History of Juvenile Justice). Second, the individual had to commit the crime. Blackstone then when on to state that one group of people who were unable to commit a crime were called “infants” (History of Juvenile Justice). These people where not literality infant or babies, but people too young to understand their actions, and therefore lacked the “vicious will” needed to commit a crime. At

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

This book’s main proposal is that there is a blatant contradiction in the way that the juvenile justice system is carried out. Throughout the book, Feld proposes that as a result of this contradiction, the modern juvenile justice system fails in every way possible to establish justice for youthful offenders, provide them with any rehabilitation, or provides any preventative measures that were originally the purpose of the system. What originally constituted the juvenile justice system no longer is supported through its processes, but the ideas that helped form the original system are still somewhat maintained. The idea of childhood during the progressive era, in short, say that there is a definite distinction between kids and adults, and that kids deserved special treatment when it came to dealing with offenses. Kids did not deserve as much blame as adults do because they are not yet totally in control of their actions, and thus to preserve and protect troubled children’s futures, kids

We should be cautious about the application of juvenile transfer/waiver because it is controversial with the public. We have to gain the sense of the public’s willingness to transfer juveniles to adult court. There are many variables that the public have taken into consideration that may be susceptible about the methods of juvenile transfer. Those variables are demographic characteristics of the offender, victim, and respondent. According to the article, the findings indicated that the age of the offender and the seriousness of the offense influence citizen’s desire to transfer juvenile to adult court. The problem is that the increased juvenile transfer doesn’t necessarily decrease the crime in juveniles.

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

What determines a juvenile to be transferred to a criminal court is based on the criteria of each statute that the state holds. In all but two states, the judge of the juvenile court is entitled to decide whether a juvenile holds the specifics to be transferred to a criminal court. Criteria can be vague and hold no true experience which makes it strenuous for a decision of waiver. Fagan and Deschenes (1990) found in their study that under the four states in which they researched, the four statutes hold a mixture of specific, and non-specific criterion. The criteria that is used is the only “official” guidance for the juvenile judge’s court decision. In response to these criterion, many policy-makers, and politicians, because of the growing fears

According to statistics, juveniles being tried as adults is not a new phenomenon. Since the beginning of the juvenile court, juveniles have been eligible to be tried as adults for the commission of capital crimes. However, starting in the 1960s and 1970s and mounting in the 1980s and 1990s, there has been an extensive upsurge in the number of juveniles tried as adults as well as a rise in research on the topic. This increase has coincided with the proliferation of laws that cover and dictate

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.

The problem there lies in the fact that juveniles are not full citizens and as such cannot be awarded such basic human rights. That opens up a frightening idea that in the world’s freest state that children may not benefit from such legal protection. One of the nation’s defining aspects is its protection of the rights of the accused; nowhere else is the arrested person more protected. And the idea of a child spending their entire life behind the walls of a cell simply due to a legal hiccup is brutal in its own right. Thankfully such a system is in place, the juvenile court system, is in place to combat this exact problem. However, when the crime includes unwarranted murder and the state moves to convict with the full force of the law, then that system is bypassed and such secured rights become distorted and are open to be swept away

Barry Feld (1999) argues against juvenile courts by stating that the historical ideal of a rehabilitative welfare agency for young people has been scaled down to a second-class criminal court for kids. The juvenile

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.

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

Throughout the 18th century, juveniles and adults were subject to the same criminal justice system. Children and adolescents were regarded as adults and treated as such in court and correction. In the 19th century, a reform took place which aimed at addressing the issue of juveniles being incarcerated in adult jails. A new perception of juveniles surfaced. They were no longer regarded as adults, but instead as persons who have not yet reached adult cognitive and moral development. This new perception has led reformers to create a new system, one that focuses on child and adolescent offenders exclusively and that viewed adolescents and children as more open to rehabilitation. The first juvenile court was established in 1899 in Cook County, Illinois. It shifted the focus away from punishment and instead aimed at “identifying the underlying causes of the delinquent behavior