The Criminal Justice System Is Not Child Focused

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

Young offenders are recognised under the law to have a different level of responsibility and vulnerability to adult offenders. This creates tension in the community, as when children are not protected in criminal procedures, their rights are not upheld. This is demonstrated in R V Phung and Huynh [2001] NSWSC 115, where the accused was detained without the contact of his guardian of choice for over several hours, was not consulted on whom he preferred as a support person and was not given a lawyer. This creates tension as the child did not receive the criteria assigned under the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) and was without a legal representative, defying the fairness of his case. However, the judge deemed the evidence provided from interviews as inadmissible due to his rights being denied. The courts attempt to prevent the tension from the community by using the judge’s discretion in determining what evidence is

The film “Juvies” really made me think about how the criminal justice system treats young children. Before watching the film, I was under the impression that children were treated fairly and with care when they commit a crime. After all, they are just kids. However, to my surprise, this was not the case. Many children have been cheated by the law because they are put through the adult system and are not given a fair trial. Meanwhile, these children are expected to make the rational decisions that an adult would make. There is biological evidence that kids do not have the ability to control impulsive behavior because their brains are underdeveloped. Thus, I believe this system is extremely unfair because children are not protected in adult prisons, which makes it very difficult for them to succeed once they are released back into the free world.

Nowadays, the topic of the Juvenile law system is a very controversial as well as difficult discussion to have. For every court case, trial, and scenario, there are many different circumstances that may affect the outcome. Due to the seriousness of their crimes or even their past offenses, juvenile criminals can sometimes be tried as adults. Personally, in the beginning of this assignment, I could see both sides of the argument. There are many reasons why children under the age of 18 should be tried as children, however, there are more proficient reasons as to why we should do away with juvenile court. Many of my peers do not think this, however, they are keen on keeping children tried as children. I truly cannot fathom the “good” that

The need to protect children and youth; to treat them separately and differently from adults in the criminal justice system; to provide rehabilitation, not repression and deterrence, when offering judicial intervention with young people; and to consider the best interest of the child to be a guiding principle (p34)

Every day, throughout the world, children come into conflict with law enforcement officials because they are alleged or accused of having committed a criminal offence. How these children are handled can have a profound impact on their future prospects, and may be determinative of whether they grow up to become productive citizens or fall into a life of crime. For this reason, the diversion specialized responses for dealing with children in conflict with the law that take into account their young age and are aimed at promoting their reintegration and development as productive

The first problem associated with trying children as adults, is the simple fact that a child would never be able to survive in grown persons environment, such as prison (Equal Justice). Children in adults’ prisons are at greatly increased risk of abuse, sexual assault, suicide, and death (Safety and Justice). According to

Did you know, that in the United States alone, Over 200,000 children are charged and imprisoned every year as adults? Early in the 20th century, most states established juvenile courts to rehabilitate and not just punish youthful offenders. The system was designed for children to have a second chance at their lives. “A separate juvenile-justice system, which sought to rehabilitate and not just punish children, was part of a movement by progressives to create a legally defined adolescence through the passage of child-labor and compulsory education laws and the creation of parks and open spaces.”(How to reduce crime Pg 1) Although the view on juveniles committing brutal crimes is nearly inconceivable, it is not a solution to give juveniles adult consequences because the effects of the adult system on juveniles are not effective.

Within the article of Over-Representation of Children in Care in the Youth Criminal Justice System in British Columbia: Theory and Policy Issues written by Ray Corrado, Lauren F. Freedman and Catherine Blatier the prevalence of children in child protection services in the criminal justice is discussed, along with the theories and policies that relate. The authors begin by looking at children in care in the justice system through a policy perspective. This was done by referencing the developmental perspective stating that a preventative measure of youth violence is the involvement of agencies and ministries such as child care workers and public health nurses in the initial developmental stages of children in care. The providing of agencies in

Children whose parents have been detained and imprisoned confront a variety of difficulties. The behavioral consequences can be severe, absent of decisive intervention, emotional withdrawal, failure in school, delinquency and risk of intergenerational incarceration. However, these children appear to become misplaced and unrecognized by the criminal justice system (Dallaire, Zeman, & Thrash, 2015). Even though a significant number of children are present at the time of their mother’s arrest, law enforcement usually does not ask upon arrest whether a woman offender has children nor do sentencing judiciaries or correctional agencies ever inquire about the matter. Since agencies do not gather information regarding the children, it is vague just how many children are affected when sentencing these women (Dallaire, Zeman, & Thrash, 2015).

The use of moving a child from the Juvenal Court system and placing them in the Adult Court system to stand trial for criminal offenses as an adult in a judicial process that has been happening, more and more, in the United States over the past 40 years (Kilkelly, 2016). The criminal charges that have faced the young offenders under the age of 18 moving them to receive harsh punishments from the Adult Court Systems in the United States are crimes such as rape, murder, and drug offenses just to name a few of them (Kilkelly, 2016).

At the end of the 19th Century, the U.S. made legal history when the world's first juvenile court opened in Chicago(Horwitz-Prisco). The court was founded on two basic principles. First, juveniles lacked the maturity to take responsibility for their actions the way adults could. Second, because their character was not yet fully developed, they could be rehabilitated more successfully than adult criminals. More than a century later, these principles remain the benchmarks of juvenile justice in the United States(Horowitz-Prisco).In recent years, however, a growing number of juvenile criminals are being tried as adults. In part this stems from public outrage against children who are committing violent crimes. Many young children in America are

Until the late 19th century, children were tried in criminal courts with adults. According to common law, the law regarded children under the age of

Second, we must look at the affects of being a witness not only on the legal system but also on the child as an individual. Children could be further traumatized emotionally and physically by involvement as a witness. Finally, we need to closely look at how the legal system is set up and how well children fit into this system. Are witness procedures set up in a way that children can understand and accurately give their testimony? These are the things that need to be looked at closely to determine if children can be reliable and credible witnesses in court.

Victims can potentially evade the circumstances of intimidation, victim blaming and re-victimisation. The defendant’s legal representative will attempt to discredit the complainant to strengthen their client’s declaration of innocence. Children and people with intellectual disabilities are more likely to be intimidated and confused by the questions and provide unreliable evidence to the case (Australian Law Reform Commission 2006). For example, children aren’t always capable of recalling traumatic events from the past and can misunderstand questions. People with intellectual disabilities can experience anxiety and may not realise their situation to seek clarification when they are perplexed. Further trauma and grief can be prevented because victims won’t be expected to recall their experience, if they are given the option to have a special hearing. The reform eliminates complainants from being disadvantaged in the trial process, due to their susceptible position (Bowden, Henning, Plater 2014). Therefore, it is vital judges can halt the questions if it is ‘improper’ or ‘inappropriate’. ‘Improper’ questions are asked with the intention of misleading and offending the complainant to discredit and discourage them (Victoria Legal Aid 2011). It can be reassuring for victims going through cross-examination, because they cannot be asked about their past sexual history with past partners or with the accused. So, the victim’s character and past behaviour won’t be linked to generalisations and become arguable for the accused’s innocence. Moreover, complainants could request to be declared as a “protected witness” which disallows the accused to personally cross-examine the victim. In this case, the judge will order the lawyer of the accused to cross-examine the complainant so they are not provoked by