Nine Standards In The Juvenile Justice System

During In re Winship (1970), it was determined that juveniles, just like adults, are entitled to “beyond a reasonable doubt” during the adjudication process. It was also decided that “preponderance of evidence” was not enough to gain a conviction when it came to juveniles being charged with criminal offenses an adult could commit. Both In re Winship (1970) and In re Gault (1967) were designed to

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.

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.

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

When a decision is made to transfer a juvenile case to criminal court, a judicial waiver

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

The court, at the sentencing hearing, shall consider specified factors in determining the appropriate sentence and be given greater discretion in determining an appropriate sentence. This bill extracts details from the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, which entails the cautions when handling the minor in custody and as the minor is released (Illinois General Assembly , 2015). When adolescence potency extended a peak more than 20 years ago, the country lost sureness in its ability to rehabilitate juveniles. Councils passed laws permitting more young offenders to be tried as adults. Since then, juvenile

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

Competence to stand trial, in order for a forensic psychologist to evaluate the juvenile the product will consist of first initial response, evaluation, report, and testimony. Treatment Amenability (TG modifier) also requires the same. The assessment of a juvenile is directed to support the juvenile court system with choice building about one of the succeeding four psycho-legal issues. The first is the mental state at the time of crime, is the juvenile competent to proceed through adjudication; amenability to treatment or rehabilitation as a child in available facilities, as define in by the New Mexico Children’s Code under the Youthful Offender Statute [32A-2-20, B. (1) and (2)]; and treatment as an alternative to incarceration due to risk

In today’s society there has been an increase in the crimes committed by juveniles. Most juveniles have underlining factors that have caused them to choose this type of lifestyle. Many children in the juvenile system have come from impoverish stricken neighborhoods and are festered with gang activity which has made them a product of their environment. The minds of adolescents do not allow them to see how they are affecting their lives. A study was conducted, and according to the article, “Adolescents in Adult Court: Does the Punishment Fit the Criminal?”, when children mature, they will look back at their past and possibly leave their surroundings. Think about two people committing the same crime, both with the same thought process and ability to make decisions, except one is a juvenile and the other is grown. Due to the lack of experience in decision-making or the time to evaluate the situation like the adult, the youth should be viewed as irresponsible. The fact that a child’s mind is still maturing should reassure people that they will not be the same person incarcerated a few years later.

Judicial waiver, direct files, and statutory exclusion are the three mechanisms used to transfer juvenile offenders to adult criminal court. Although direct files and statutory exclusion are used from time to time, it is judicial waiver that is used in most juvenile transfer cases. Judicial waiver is the most common mechanism used and it gives juvenile court judges the authority to table certain juvenile cases to the adult criminal court. In the last few decades, 48 states, including District of Columbia, have gained the authority to waive juveniles to criminal court. 37 states have the authority to use statutory exclusion which orders juvenile prosecutions in adult courts. The last mechanism is direct files and 10 states approve of it as a mean to transfer juveniles to criminal courts by warranting the prosecution the power to charge the juvenile as an adult. These three mechanisms differ due to the level of discretion that each provides to the courts and actors of the courts. One gives the discretion to the judge while other two leave it either up to the judge or the court itself to determine whether or not the juvenile should be transferred. All 50 states, including District of Columbia, allows at least one out of the three mechanisms to transfer juveniles to criminal courts. The intended goal for trying a juvenile in adult criminal court is to intensify the punishment and deter the juvenile from relapsing into their criminal behavior. According to Steiner, in his article

Laws tend to make the lives of every individual safer and pleasant. The subject of this paper focuses on evaluating and identifying the Constitutional safeguards within the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments of the United States Constitution. How these safeguards to the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment will apply to juvenile and adult court proceedings. Finally, this paper will focus the impact that these safeguards, such as speedy trial, Miranda warning, exclusionary rule, and right to counsel will have on the day- to- day operation for juvenile and adult courts.

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.

When discussing juveniles, it is important to understand the legal protections that are afforded to persons less than eighteen years of age. Equally important is why these protections were deemed necessary. These protections are extremely significant and alter the way juveniles interact with the

In order to proceed with this paper, we must understand what exactly is the criteria for a person to be classified as a juvenile. A juvenile, can be defined as, “a person who is not yet old enough to be legally considered an adult. ”