Difference Between Juvenile And Adult Corrections

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 Juvenile Justice System was established in 1899 when the first documented court hearing took place in Cook County, Illinois. This type of court system was designed to discipline, treat, and rehabilitate children under the legal age of eighteen, who are caught and/or convicted of committing crimes against society. Since its creation, many have argued for and against having two separate but parallel court systems. This essay will discuss the basic arguments in favor of and in opposition to the retention of the juvenile justice system.

When it comes to how each state handles the judicial system in their jurisdiction, it varies from state to state. All states construct their own juvenile judicial system and create their own laws. There are different beliefs in each state about what will distinguish differences in the juvenile and adult justice systems. In most jurisdictions, juveniles are considered delinquent and not guilty. ( "State Juvenile Justice Profiles" )

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

There is no question that if a person is involved in any type of crime they will at some time make their way through the justice system. However, when that person is an adolescent they will go through the juvenile justice system, as an adult would go through the adult justice system. Even though the crimes of each can be of the same manner or hold the same severity the punishment results can differ.

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

The juvenile court system has a higher concentration on rehabilitating offenders so that they do not end up in adult courts. In the juvenile system, rehabilitation is the most used philosophy so that the children in the courts may have the opportunity to live a life outside of prison. Adult courts do try and rehabilitate those that are found guilty of committing crimes, but more often than not, rehabilitation is combined with incarceration. Adult courts also differ from juvenile courts because in adult courts there is a presentation of evidence to try and determine guilt. Juvenile courts on the other hand examine the actions of a juvenile and try and determine how to rehabilitate the individual.

Today, the court system in this country is divided into two groups when comparing juveniles and adults. One is the Adult Criminal Justice System, and the other is the Juvenile Justice System. The terminology can be very different between the two systems. For instance; if an adult is arrested, they will be subject to a bail hearing. If a juvenile is arrested they must go through a detention hearing. Adults have trials which can be decided by a judge or jury. Juveniles go through a fact finding hearing and don’t receive verdicts because they are adjudicated. “They are not found guilty, but delinquent or involved” (Komiscruk). Another difference between the two is that juvenile court rooms are usually closed to the public, which

In the United States, juveniles have always known to cause trouble in the community. In recent times, many individuals have the perception that juvenile crimes are on the rise and that these offenders are getting younger. Charging juveniles as adult has always been a debate, because of their thinking process and protecting their rights. There are many cases that regard juveniles that have changed the policies of this nation. Also for those juveniles that are convicted as adults, there are many challenges that correctional officials have when housing them. Waivering juveniles to adult court has many factors to it and whether or not juveniles age thirteen and fourteen should be

A juvenile in the adult court system has its benefits. The adult justice system allows a juvenile to have a jury, a proper judge, and the right representation. This is unlike the juvenile court system, which has no jury. Getting suspects in prison works better if they go through the adult criminal system. Donna M. Bishop proves this by saying the following statement, "Juveniles tried as adults were more likely to be incarcerated, and incarcerated for longer than those who remained in the juvenile system”. If a juvenile goes through the adult system, they will most likely get a longer sentence. The longer sentence will allow them to have a longer period for reformation. The couple of extra years or months for a dangerous juvenile being locked up is worth the protection. The adult system makes sure the juveniles pay for the crime that has been committed. If there is a crime, there should be a punishment, as seen in the Graham v. Florida Supreme Court case. A seventeen-year-old boy named Terrance Graham pled guilty to an armed burglary and then later violated his

“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

To completely understand the current issues surrounding the direction of the juvenile justice system is easy to obtain when one focuses on how the juvenile justice system has changed since its inception. The United States wanted to reform its policies for dealing with juveniles that enter the justice system, so in the late 1800’s was the beginning of a number of reforms. Several reforms focused on protecting the rights of youth, such as through “due process of law”. The United States has shifted from their original intent and purpose for the juvenile justice system to a system more comparable to the adult justice system.

The juvenile justice system is similar to the criminal justice system. This system is where juveniles are processed, and may be arrested after referrals for juvenile delinquency. Juvenile justice is very different in every state and can be very similar as well because every system has limited jurisdiction and that most focus on the offenders and not their offenses. Therefore, there are 51 juvenile justice systems in the United States. The United States has the juvenile justice system because children are very different than adults – in that they can be better receptive for change and also being easier to rehabilitate. Moreover, the main goal of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation (Juvenile Law Center). The juvenile justice system is made up of police, courts, corrections, probation and parole services, as well as community-based programs to name a few (book).

Every justice system of criminal laws will rest on postulates or ethical theories. The adult system and juvenile system share differences and commonalities. For example, the juvenile justice system work toward rehabilitating the youths and not punish the juveniles. Adults and juveniles who admit to guilt have a procedural safeguard system to help protect his or her rights. This also includes hearings, right to appeal, and plea bargains. Juveniles and adults have the right to a counsel in a court proceeding. Due process given to juveniles and adults the same. Juveniles are not offered the right to a jury trial or public trial. Another safeguard is not housing juveniles and adults together, not to just to protect

The juvenile justice system in America has been through numerous phases of growth. In recent years, it has endured extensive changes that have taken place as a product of reforms made to revitalize the innovative principle of juvenile justice, the idea of bringing individual justice and treatment to the heart of the system. This assessment of related literature looks particularly at the accessible studies on juvenile detention centers in order to prove the negative effects of taking a disciplinary approach in juvenile justice. It starts with an historical evaluation in order to place the increase of detention centers in context. This paper subsequently goes on to talk about detailed problems