Prosecution Of Juvenile Offenders

Over 1/3 of the 11,000 index crime arrests were juveniles under the age of 16.

There have been many studies conducted that examine ways in which the juvenile justice system responds to female offenders. Historically juvenile female offenders have been treated under status offense jurisdiction (Zahn et al., 2010, p. 10). United States Courts would exercise the principle of “parens patriae” to place the female in detention as a form of punishment for misbehavior (Sherman, 2012, pp. 1589-1590). This principle also remains prevalent as it pertains to how the juvenile justice system currently responds to juvenile female offenders.

There is much debate over whether or not juveniles should ever be tried as adults. Juveniles are defined as children under the age of 18. In the past, juveniles have been tried in a separate juvenile court because of their age. However, trying juveniles as adults for violent crimes is a trend that is on the rise. Age is supposed to be a deterrent for placing those under 18 on trial and giving them stiffer punishments that are often reserved for adults. Many debate whether or not juveniles really should have less severe punishments or if trying some juveniles as adults will lower juvenile crime rates.

Skip Hollandsworth candidly explores the subjects of juvenile crime and sentencing in the electronic long form newspaper article, “The Prisoner”. The purpose of the essay is to inform the reader about juvenile sentencing and to persuade the audience that there are clear problems with aspects of the U.S. prison system. The article is easily accessible to a large audience because it is online. Hollandsworth takes into account that his audience, mostly consisting of Texas Monthly readers, may already have pre-established notions about the topic, so he considers other sides while still supporting his argument. Edwin Debrow, a preteen member of the Crips, committed a murder when he was 12-years old and received a 27-year sentence through the

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

Approximately two million adolescents a year are arrested and out of that two million, 60,000 of them are incarcerated according to the American Journal of Public Health. The 60,000 incarcerated adolescents each year are being tried as adults in court because of the serious crimes they have committed. The crimes they have committed are anything from armed robbery to murder. Some juveniles might be first time offenders and others might be repeat offenders. Crimes have always been a major issue in the United States and can cause controversy in the criminal justice system. Charging a minor as an adult in criminal court varies from state to state based on each state’s jurisdiction. Some states consider anyone up to the age of 18 still a juvenile and would not be charged as an adult in criminal court, but other states may charge a juvenile as an adult at the age of 16 or 17. Jordan (2014) states, “Although states already had methods for transferring youth to the adult system, as a result of the growing fear of juvenile violence, most states implemented new laws to increase the number of youth entering the adult criminal system’ (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Torbet et al., 1996)” (p. 315). While it sounds beneficial to incarcerate more adolescents in the adult criminal justice system to avoid juveniles from committing crimes in the future, that is not always the case. Incarcerating these juveniles can be life changing in a negative

In transferring, a juvenile to adult court there is a certain amount of criteria that needs to be followed. The first criteria is if the juvenile is dangerous to the community, the maturity of the offender, and the psychological findings of the offender, it helps to determine if the juvenile is qualified to be transferred to adult court. This information is to happen in the intake process upon the processing of the offender into custody. There were two different types of questionnaires that were sent out to the juvenile court judges. With doing a survey with juvenile court judges around the nation, only 44% responded back on what the criteria to transfer the offender to adult court. These surveys made the criteria form a standard that every juvenile judge follows in determining a transfer to adult court.

Juveniles committing crimes is not a new issued being introduced to society; actually, it has been an issue for centuries. However, the big question is, should juveniles be tried in adult courts? Before answering, take into consideration every possible scenario that could have led them to commit the crime. For instance, were they the leader in the act? Did they participate in the crime? Was the juvenile even aware of what was taking place? Were they peer pressured? Did they have any other choice at the time? There are so many other questions we could consider when making a decision here.

Researchers conducted a national study of how the juvenile court judge weighs the pertinent Kent criteria. This criterion is based on the potential risk to the community, the maturity of character and amenability to intervention. The purpose of this study is three fold, first to test the juvenile court judges' beliefs regarding the mechanics of how juveniles are transferred, second to examine the judges' beliefs about the usefulness of data presented of them and third determined how juvenile judges' weigh pertinent psychological concepts linked to transfer cases when making a decision. There were four hypothesis based on previous research and theory, one would be juvenile judges' prefer case by case sorting and second juvenile court judges would find information on the Kent concepts useful to their decision and want the Kent information in the form of a psychological report. The third hypothesis is weighing the concepts; juveniles who scored high on dangerousness and sophistication- maturity, but low on amenability to treatment would most likely be transferred to adult court and fourth youths scoring low on the dangerousness and sophistication- maturity but high on the amenability to treatment would most likely retain in juvenile court.

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

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.

In transferring, a juvenile to adult court there is a certain amount of criteria that needs to be followed. The first criteria is if the juvenile is dangerous to the community, the maturity of the offender, and the psychology findings of the offender, it helps to determine if the juvenile is qualified to be transferred to adult court. This information is to happen in the intake process upon the processing of the offender into custody. There were two different types of questionnaires that were sent out to the juvenile court judges. With doing a survey with juvenile court judges around the nation, only 44% responded back on what the criteria to transfer the offender to adult court. These surveys made the criteria form a standard that every juvenile judge follows in determining a transfer to adult court.

A comparison of young offenders charged in New Jersey’s juvenile court and in New York’s criminal court shows that youths convicted for serious crimes in criminal courts repeated crimes at a higher rate after their release than the ones tried in juvenile courts. From the many research conducted, the following is evident; transferred juveniles are more likely to offend, and there is a greater likelihood of re-arrest of offenders. In fact, a hundred-percentage likelihood of re-arrest of violent offense criminals, and these transfers increase recidivisms among the offenders (Lonn, page 82).

Factors such as type of offense, the age of the juvenile offender, and criminal history take

In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the United States Supreme Court determined that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional to juvenile offenders. This decision is agreeable upon because adolescents do not receive the opportunity to reform themselves. As the Court suggests, life in prison violates the Eighth Amendment, which accounts for a ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, juveniles still must be held accountable for their actions and should be sentenced to a fair verdict according to their crime, whether they are an adult or not.