The Heinous Gangs: The Amy Yates Cases

The Juvenile Delinquents Act brought some positive impacts on many young people who went through the juvenile justice system. However, many flaws appeared in this Act after a period of time. "Under the JDA, there were a number of differences in provincial prohibitions, variations in maximum age limits, and a wide range of financial commitment" (Covell & Howe, 1996, p.346). The juvenile offender under this law, which built a level of discretionary regime, had few rights with regards to the welfare. In addition, according to Makarenko, there was another limit of this act – the law did not charge against children by defining different circumstances, instead, it charged children with delinquency. The law offered judges with a great deal of rights in sentencing juvenile delinquents (2007, p.2).

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)

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

Gail Garinger, the author of “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences,” argues that children should not be struck down for life because they commit the most vile and horrible crimes imaginable, based on the sole fact that they are still adolescents, and that they should be given the chance for parole and rehabilitation because they are not fully developed; therefore, in her article she shows exceptionally strong ethos to support her claim. Garinger first exposes her strong ethos by using the authority of the Supreme Court to exclaim why the youth shouldn’t be punished to a life sentence for homicide or manslaughter by saying, “the Supreme Court

This paper is about the most controversial subject in the penal system today, i.e. should juveniles be treated as adults and be tried in the adult justice system and the negative impact on their lives. This becomes relevant after the judgment in Roper Vs Simmons (1995) which states that there is a doubt as to when the adolescent becomes an adult. The paper further analyses whether juveniles are different from adults and the conclusion arrived at is that the adult world is different from the world of minors and hence there must be total differentiation between the justice systems for juveniles and adults.

Since the early 1990s the transfer of Juvenile waiver has been an enormously heavy topic on whether a juvenile is fully culpable of a crime or not. The option of juvenile waiver has been a proceeding ethical argument between the courts and the families of the juvenile. According to Forst and Blomquist (2012), criticism involving the juvenile system began in the 1960s and expanded into the 1970s because of the soaring crime rates. The desire for juvenile waiver began with the interpretation that the System failed because of these crime rates. Although juvenile systems across the nation, controversy surrounds the topic of Juvenile justice. There is a constant search for who is in control of the child that is being held in court.

Indent-The American Juvenile Justice System has been develop (developing) for over the past century that has differ from the ordinary adult criminal justice process. The juvenile Justice system was established to help rehabilitate and make sure juvenile offenders get another chance in life. Many juveniles are still held responsible for their actions, but society protected them from informal justice and focused more so on emphasis on care, treat and being rehabilitated. During this paper I will discuss three important cases throughout history that involves juveniles and what case is important in the development of juvenile justice case.

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 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.

The Juvenile Justice System was created as a separate network from the Criminal Justice System so that juveniles could be treated differently from adults but still be held accountable for their crimes. This system takes more of a rehabilitative approach to help the juvenile offenders rather than to simply punish them because the goal is to keep the youth on the right path and prevent them from becoming lifelong criminals. While the goal remains the same, different states have different laws in place and other methods when it comes to rehabilitation as well as punishment. Punishment for juveniles always sparks debate because many people argue that punishments such as the death penalty and life in prison should not apply to the youth because of their age. Others argue that without this kind of punishment there would be no fear for juveniles in committing serious crimes which would lead to an unfair practice of justice. An unfair practice of justice occurs across the juvenile justice system already in which race, gender, and ethnicity plays a huge role in determining how far into the system a youth goes. Changes have to be made to this system in order for improvement to be seen but it has to start from the beginning where the juveniles first come into contact with the system.

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

Many young adolescents who have committed horrendous crimes have been a huge topic amongst the Supreme Court. Whether young adolescents are viewed as innocent, naive children to the public, this not changed the fact they can commit brutal crimes. In spite of the fact that adolescents have committed brutal crimes such as murder, one needs to understand that their brains are not as fully developed as an adult brain would be. Adolescents should not be trialed to a life sentence or attend adult prisons; however, they should be punished for their actions and undergo rehabilitation programs to help them be prepared to fit in with the rest of society.

Rights of Juvenile Delinquency couldn’t be as fair as it is today without the efforts made by reformers throughout history. During the late 18th and early century youths committing crimes has little to no rights given. Children as young as 7 years old can be put and trialed as an adult even have a chance with the death penalty. These punishments where so outrageous that even if you spoke against your parents’ wishes you will be put in jail. Something needed to be done about these cruel treatments for a child at such a young age who may or may not know right from wrong. The victims had the questions, the government had both the power and most importantly the resolution. It was not only the right but also the responsibility for the people

In a period when usually common ‘kids not acting their age’ has a different idea and feeling altogether, the laws regarding delinquency have been suddenly changed and pushed to the spotlight. On the terrible and a horrible night of the 22nd of December, 2013, a young medical paramedic was gang-raped and inflicted. The most brutal criminal amongst the devil was the minor at the time of the commission, making him in the eyes of law, and the entire nation express the feeling of hopeless. The incident has not received satisfactory result examine by the rule of law as the verdict in State v Ram Singh & Ors has relieved the one juvenile in the group of the six perpetrators.In the beam of law where one side propounds the lenience on minors as a mandate for a civilized society, the other categorically demands a retributive reformation equating to the misdeed perpetrated. For those juveniles who commit even the most barbaric of crimes, Indian law cushions the punishment by making the maximum sentence to be of only three years, that too, in a reform facility. Nirbhaya was just the tipping point; there have been hundreds of incidents when children in the eyes of law have

As stated by Bartol and Bartol “Juvenile delinquency is an imprecise, nebulous, social, clinical, and legal label for a wide variety of law- and norm-violating behavior” (2011, Pg 139). The juvenile delinquency term has come to imply disgrace in today's correctional institution. Our government is up hold to procedures and expected to come with a solution to solving the delinquent problem. An underage offender can be labeled a delinquent for breaking any number of laws, ranging from robbery to running away from home, and especially being involved in school violence. The following situations faced by correction officials when dealing with juvenile delinquents will be examined. Three main areas (child development, punishments, and deterrence