The Unified Code Of Corrections

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.

The purpose of sentencing is to ensure youth are held accountable for their actions focusing on a rehabilitation and re-integration approach, while ensuring youth are given an appropriate consequence. There are many differences to sentencing a youth than an adult. A young person lacks the maturity of an adult, and the youth justice system must reflect that fact. Some differences include accountability and level of maturity, rehabilitation and reintegration are strongly emphasized, increased protection on procedures, and the intervention is implemented in a timely

Today’s heated debate regarding the decision to try juveniles as adults has prompted individuals to construct opinionated and informational articles on the topic. The nation’s troubled youth are protected by groups that believe these offenders deserve rehabilitation and a chance to develop into a productive member of society. However, others believe that those committing certain heinous crimes should be tried as adults as a means to protect public safety, prevent second offenders, and “dispense justice in the form of punishment” (Aliprandini & Michael, 2016). Because these perspectives offer a reasonable and valid argument, juveniles responsible for major crimes

Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is

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

The determinate sentencing system provides juvenile judges with tremendous flexibility in ensuring that offenders are held accountable for their crimes, that public safety is protected, and that youth have the opportunity to become rehabilitated and turn their lives around. Determinate sentencing, under some circumstances, also provides juvenile judges with the opportunity to take a “second look” at the youth when he or she reaches adult age, so that the judge can re-evaluate the youth’s risk to public safety at that point (Deitch, 2011).

The U.S. leads the world in the practice of sentencing juveniles to life without parole, claiming 99.7 percent of all youth globally serving this sentence. In fact, there are only seven such cases outside of the U.S. Concurrently, The House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security has been gathering testimony on a bill H.R. 2289 Juvenile Justice and Accountability and Improvement Act; this bill would mandate parole hearings for JLWOP prisoners. This bill covers federal cases and gives

At the beginning of 2010, The United States Supreme Court consistently stated that the eight amendment of the United States Constitutional restricts juvenile life without parole sentences. At first, prohibiting it for non-homicide offenses, and then proscribing it’s mandatory application for any offense. In 2016, it was clarified that it may only be imposed in the rare instance in which a juvenile’s homicide demonstrates his or her “irreparable corruption” (Mills, 2016). The problem that runs in this case is, should legislation abandon or restrict Juveniles life without parole applications. Due to some belief that life sentences to juveniles may be too harsh a punishment and represented a trend that would otherwise suggest that there may be

Simmons (2005), the Court ruled “that those under the age of 18 could not be sentenced to the death penalty, holding that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the US Constitution when applied to juveniles (Liles & Moak, 2015, p. 78).” In Roper, the Court addressed issues of juvenile maturity, vulnerability, external influences, development, and culpability. In their holding, the Court cited inherent differences distinct to a juvenile, stating that the juvenile’s culpability must be considered in capital punishment decisions. The decision in Roper exclusively established differences between juveniles and adults for death penalty cases. At this time, juveniles could still be sentenced to life without parole.

not be sentenced to life in prison because it violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Both sides of the argument have credible evidence on why their opinions are swayed, however each side has inconsiderate repercussions. There are juveniles who are under the age of eighteen, who are at many times given life in prison with parole for murder because of the Supreme Court ruling. Yet, there is no black or white answer that will solve whether we should punish minors with life in prison with parole. Cases should be determined on the murderer’s maturity, impetuosity during the situation and his failure

The Court ruled that those who commit non-homicide offenses before age 18 are ineligible for life sentences without parole (LWOP) and that sentencing scheme that mandate LWOP for juvenile homicide offenders are unconstitutional. The Court acknowledged that as the second most extreme penalty permitted by law. LWOP is especially harsh on juvenile offenders who, compared with adults, spend more years and a larger proportion of their lives behind bar. It reasoned that, because juveniles are less culpable and more likely to be rehabilitated than adult offenders, the sentence of LWOP is disproportionate and, hence marked unconstitutional. (Ristroph,

A major difference between the juvenile and adult court processes is that the records in a juvenile court are usually sealed unlike the records in adult court process that are freely accessible to anyone under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (Lawrence &Hesse, 2010). It is also possible for juvenile records to eventually be expunged in the event that the juvenile offender is found to have met some preconditions such as god behavior. One of the major controversies affecting the juvenile court process is the use of indeterminate sentencing. Indeterminate sentencing allows for judges to individually set a maximum sentence and that juveniles are only released when the judge in question is satisfied that they have sufficiently rehabilitated or in the event that the maximum time has been served (Nurse,

When transfer to adult court juveniles’ procedural rights may increase in adult courts, but would have multiple drawbacks for a youth. Once the juvenile has transferred in criminal court, the juvenile can be sentenced to longer punishments, lose the right to vote and received educational funding by the government and will have a criminal record that can be used against him if he commits another crime. Therefore, this juvenile is being subjected to the three strikes sentencing structure. Juveniles are also victimized in the adult penal setting in which waivers have been known to increase more crimes by the youth. Juvenile retained in the juvenile system are not more likely to reoffend than those waived youths will reoffend more quickly and more often, than those

Juvenile justice has proved to be as imprudent as it is practical. Snyder and Sickmund (1999) found that as early as 1825, there was a significant push to establish a separate juvenile justice system focused on rehabilitation and treatment. The procedure continued to stay focused on the rehabilitation of a person, even though financial support and assets sustained to hold back its achievement. In reaction to rising juvenile crime rates in the 1980s’, more corrective laws were approved (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). In the 1990s, the United States legal system took further steps regarding transfer provisions that lowered the threshold at which juveniles could be tried in criminal court and sentenced to adult prison (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). Furthermore, laws were enacted that allowed prosecutors and judges more discretion in their sentencing options; and confidentiality standards, which made juvenile court proceedings and records more available to the public (Snyder and Sickmund 1999), were reduced.

The Juvenile System has been around for a long time. The primary reason behind separating Juvenile from adult criminals is quite simple; the judicial system believes that the children are less culpable for their irresponsive behavior and they could easily be reformed as compared to adult offenders. The crucial role of the judicial system is to critically investigate, diagnose, and recommend treatments for the Juveniles rather than accrediting them. However, because of the increasing number of juvenile arrest for crimes committed by persons considered as a child, the attention that the given to a crime involving juveniles, the decreasing trust to the juvenile system itself and the lauder roar of the society for a safer place to live in,