The Decision For Transfer A Youth

There are times where a juvenile may be eligible for transfer to adult criminal court. There are certain criteria that must be met for this to happen, and there is a strong belief that juveniles who commit serious offenses would be more appropriately dealt with by criminal (or adult) courts (Elrod & Ryder, 2011). Juveniles are capable of committing the same serious offenses that adults do. Therefore, with the requirements of a transfer being met, there are times that juveniles should be placed in the adult criminal court system and tried through here, rather than the juvenile court system. The juvenile court system may not have the same consequences or sentencing guidelines as the adult criminal court; therefore, the proper punishment may

The juvenile justice system was created as a way to intervene constructively in juveniles’ lives to steer them away from the adult criminal justice system. With the idea in mind that children are different as adults and should be trialed differently, juvenile courts were established throughout the country. For example, while children may violate the law, it is often believed by many that they still have room for rehabilitation and growth for change. For quite some time it has been recognized as counterproductive to label children as criminals because this

In New York, juvenile jurisdiction starts with the youths that are over 7 and under 16 years old, but with extended jurisdiction it could last through age 20. Extended Jurisdiction is the power of the

The juvenile law in America’s system was created on the premise that due to young people’s immaturity, the crimes they have committed should be handled in a different manner from those ascribed to adults. The young people were mostly under the age of eighteen. The key basis was to address the cause of their misdemeanors and to ultimately restore their responsible membership within the community (Bernard, 2012). Juvenile courts date back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In the United States, juvenile courts vary in structure and organization, but all serve the common goal of rehabilitating young people.

Just as in Australia, juveniles are now being protected more than ever to help deter them from criminal activities. An understanding has occurred that juveniles need more recidivism programs and resources made available to them in order to accurately guide them into adulthood. Punishments have become less hardened on juveniles than ever before for the reason that juveniles don’t have the mental capability to understand fully right from wrong just yet. Many times a juvenile offender is just acting out for attention when they have committed a crime and with that understanding law officials can help them in a justly manner. Protecting the youth has become a prevalent issue worldwide and the need to help them be able to say no to criminal actions

Juveniles cases can get transferred to a criminal court through a process called a “waiver.” Factors that contribute to a reasonable and fair waiver includes the minor committing a serious crime, having a lengthy criminal record, unsuccessful past rehabilitation or that youth services would have to work with the defender for a long period of time. Currently, today 2 states, Kansas and Vermont have statuary provisions for trying children as young as 10 years old, while another handful of states are trying to move forward with similar legislation. In comparison, the state of Tennessee there is no minimum age for juveniles being transferred to adult criminal courts We all know the saying, “Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the crime.” However, is this statement true at all? Americans first started to realize the problem, when the term “juvenile superpredators” was coined in the late 1990’s.

The evaluation of success for the purpose of justice is worth seeing the adolescent’s age to be no longer considered a juvenile. Has society dealt with the crime correctly or does the cost for said decision outweigh the punishment the juvenile deserves? Is this the right direction? The struggling issue the legal system is navigating through leads into a decision pointing the said juvenile in the right direction by guidance and education or destroying the juvenile by matching a harsher punishment to a particular crime. In order to make the appropriate decision, a list of “pros” and “cons” would be able to offer some assistance. The “pro” side for a juvenile court system is direction and guidance. This court system sees the lack of maturity and discretion of this youth. This should give cause of seeing the youth as “different” than an adult and should be held less blameworthy for the crime committed. This court’s main objective is to handle the youth through policed courses and correctional involvement for the purpose of rehabilitation. The court focuses on the “age” instead of the “crime.” Transferring to the adult courts, the purpose is to bring harsher sentences for the crime committed as well as the slim chance of “getting off” the hook by attending counseling or other step-process program. Adult courts also see the victims and their families need relief for the crime committed against them. Adult courts do offer the juvenile the majority

In the first place, exchange to grown-up court modifies the legitimate procedure by which a minor is attempted. Criminal court depends on an antagonistic model, while juvenile court is based, from a certain perspective, on a more agreeable model. This distinction in the atmospheres of adolescent versus grown-up courts is noteworthy in light of the fact that it is misty at what age people have adequate comprehension of the consequences of the antagonistic procedure and the diverse personal stakes of prosecutors, resistance lawyers, and judges. Youthful litigants might just not have what it takes- - by the guidelines set up in the Constitution- - to be ready to guard themselves in criminal court. Second, the lawful gauges connected in grown-up and adolescent courts are distinctive. For instance, skill to stand trial is assumed among grown-up respondents unless they experience the ill effects of a genuine maladjustment or significant mental impediment. We don't know whether the assumption of skill holds for adolescents, who, even without mental hindrance or dysfunctional behavior, may need adequate fitness to take an interest in the adjudicative procedure. (Social Issues

In the legal world, juvenile offenders have a complicated status. Not yet quite adults, with less understanding of laws, there is a complicated balance that must be struck between their having to answer to their crimes and holding them accountable for their actions while still being cognizant of the fact that they do not always possess the mental capacity to fully understand their criminal behavior as wrong. Juvenile courts today attempt to balance the punitive and rehabilitative needs of youths. One such way to do this is the development of juvenile diversion programs.

The juvenile justice system in America has been suffered several stages and changes in the process of administration of justice to juvenile offender, today as result of this changes exist an application of the law to the juvenile offender with individual justice and an adequate rehabilitation that is fundamental to the system (DC: National Juvenile Red de justice, 2012)

While youth are in the juvenile justice system, they are viewed and treated as being less responsible than adults. Most general commentators perceive that there is a separate justice system for minors not only so the young offenders can be rehabilitated, but also for the reason minors do not deserve to be punished as severely as adults (Greenwald, 1983). However commentators

Evolution of Juvenile Justice System Throughout history, children as young as 7 years old accused of wrongdoing went to prison with adults. However, the course of events took a different turn in 1824 when New York house of refuge opened to house the juvenile delinquents. The refuge house charter defined juveniles as “youths convicted of criminal offences or found in vagrancy” (Hess, Orthmann, & Wright, 2012).

The juvenile justice system acts as a rehabilitation, treatment, and educational facility for delinquent minors. The intention of forming the juvenile court was to keep minors out of adult prisons and thus mitigate their exposure to poor role models and adult criminal activity. Further, the system aims at divert them from increased antisocial behavior thus achieving positive outcomes. However, due to the outcomes in most juvenile cases, such as failure to lower juvenile crime or reduce recidivism, one would argue that the juvenile court has outlived its usefulness.

Since 1992 almost every state made it easy to try juveniles as adults and congress had provided the additional encouragement to this trend in 1998. They made federal grants contingent on states having policies allowing for the prosecution of children over the age 14 as adults. The state juvenile codes have permitted the most serious and chronic older youth offenders to be transferred to adult criminal court by a process of judicial waiver followed by a hearing in front of the judge at juvenile

Juveniles' propensity to display criminal and violent behavior can become rather difficult to control at time due to long-term effects of abuse and neglect. According to Hirschy & Wilkinson (2010), "Criminal and violent behavior, socioemotional difficulties, substance abuse, and alcoholism are just a few of the long-term consequences of abuse and neglect" (p. 116). The ramification of actions should not be based on the concept of an individual's age. Although it may seem that the juveniles are at a disadvantage when tried in adult courts, per se, they should be introduced to the rigid and yet hierarchical structured system. The penalties for committing crimes should not be overlooked in the matters of sentencing young offenders in the adult criminal system which are often proportional to their deeds. The threat of such harsh punishments will discourage the juveniles from committing heinous crimes and thus lower the statistical rates. The impartment of justice and punishment needs to be included in the juvenile philosyphy which is implanted in every juvenile court. Furthermore, the juvenile justice system, rather than being based on the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, should emphasize the punishments which will better help with the protection and safety of the public through the use of a system that responded to deviance activities carried out by juveniles who are maturing into