The Youth Justice System in Europe Essay examples

The court decision was influenced by Graham and Roper cases that established for sentencing reasons children are different from adults under the constitution. Children lack maturity and have no developed sense of responsibility. This leads them to be impulsive and reckless. In Roper it was held children are exposed to outside pressure and negative influences from friends. Therefore, they have less control of their environment because the child’s nature is not2 well informed. Graham and Roper emphasized distinguishing traits of children weakening justification for inflicting harsh sentences to juveniles even when they commit outrageous crimes.

7-15 year old (in some cases, a maximum of 17years) young people are confined under this Law. The courts, as the judicial role of parents, had to decide whether the young people should bear the consequences for their crimes. If the judge found that the minor's conduct had constituted a crime, then he could order him or her into the juvenile correctional homes until the relevant authorities agreed the criminal juvenile could be released. The law assumed the responsibility of the parents that they should determine the care of young people in terms of education and the linkages with their families (Sayson, 2006, p.6).

Restorative vs. Retributive Justice Name Institution Date The movie ‘Sleepers’ describes the lives of four boys, Tommy, Michael, Shakes, and Johnny. In an attempt to steal a hot dog cart, the cart rolls down the street almost killing an elderly man. The four boys are taken to a collective center, Wilkinson Home for Boys.

In Canada when a young person gets in trouble with the law, the punishment given will be in accordance with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Youth Criminal Justice Act was created in 2003. The main objective of this legislation is to hold youth accountable for their actions through the promotion of “rehabilitation” and “reintegration” (Youth Criminal Justice Act, 2002, S.3a(ii)). Within the Canadian court system, there is a youth court for individuals who get in trouble with the law while they are still under the age of 18 years. In Calgary, Alberta the youth courtrooms are located in the Calgary Courts Center building, which is located at 601 5th Street SW. I attended youth court on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 and Monday, October 31th. This paper will shed light on the atmosphere of the youth courtroom, analyze how the criminal justice professionals are acting within the courtroom, and discuss certain cases that went through the youth courts.

Doli Incapax however, doesn’t end once a young person reaches the age of 10. From the ages of 10-14 it is a common law presumption that a minor does not possess the necessary knowledge to have a criminal intention. This is known as a rebuttable presumption. This presumption lies in favour of the young person just as if they were under the age of 10, however, the other party can rebut it if they are able to show sufficient evidence to disprove this. This can be done a fair few ways. One of the ways to rebut Doli Incapax is by looking at the young persons criminal record. Previous offences that are linked to the present offence (e.g. robbery and assault) can be used to rebut Doli Incapax. Another way to rebut Doli Incapax is by interviewing the young person. This must be done so however, in the presence of an adult, if it not, the evidence may be inadmissible in court. The interview process will involve a police officer questioning the juvenile about their knowledge of the offence. If the juvenile admits they were aware that the offence was a criminal matter, Doli Incapax is rebutted. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) supports this idea of the age of criminal responsibility and Australia has ratified legislations proposed referring to this idea. The Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) lays out the minimum age of criminal responsibility, although there are occasional debates within the public to reduce this age. Doli Incapax is

Currently each state and territory in Australia has its own individual legislation concerning juvenile crime. All state and territory laws do not conform to the Conventions on the Right of the Child and it is crucial that these laws are amended to better protect juveniles. The most effective reform that could be made is for each state and territory to amend their individual legislations to increase the minimum age to be criminally responsible from 10 to 12 with the doli incapax doctrine still being applied. Although it has been acknowledged that under the common law doctrine doli incapax, children between 10 and 14 are only criminally responsible if the individual is mature enough to realise the consequences of their actions, this assessment is left to the judge, often without expert knowledge from a phycologist (Amnesty International, 2015). Furthermore, it is crucial for Queensland to raise their maximum age from 17 to 18. This amendment will allow Australia to keep up with international standards while reducing Aboriginal crime in areas where crime rates are

The movement to separate children from adults in the court system can be traced back to English common law, just like most of America’s criminal justice system. English lawyer William Blackstone had a significant influence on the separation of Juvenile and adult courts. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, that was first published in the late 1760’s, was widely read and well-regarded by the founders of America (History of Juvenile Justice). In Blackstone’s book, he identified individuals who were considered incapable of committing crimes (History of Juvenile Justice). Two requirement needed to be met in order for someone to commit a crime. First, the individual had to have a “vicious will”, or the intent to commit a crime (History of Juvenile Justice). Second, the individual had to commit the crime. Blackstone then when on to state that one group of people who were unable to commit a crime were called “infants” (History of Juvenile Justice). These people where not literality infant or babies, but people too young to understand their actions, and therefore lacked the “vicious will” needed to commit a crime. At

The overwhelming majority of juveniles are involved in impulsive or risky, even delinquent behaviors during their teenage years. However, the majority go on to become very productive citizens who do not commit crimes. In order for this to continue the government established the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which gives young offenders a chance to better themselves, and. By doing so, the YCJA helps teach youth that their actions are unacceptable and the punishments imposed are lesser then an adult. Through the analysis of their unacceptable actions, lesser punishments and a better future, it is clear that YCJA is highly effective at giving youth a better chance in society.

The topic of juveniles justice and whether or not to charge teen criminals in adult courts and sentence them to audit prisons is one issue that is always up for debate. Media plays a huge role on juvenile crimes they show the worst about it and not any positive which makes many people feel that there's a huge problem going on with the juvenile justice. Minors should not be charged as adults or be sentenced to adult prisons without knowing the background or the circumstances.Not every kid that commits a crime will grow up to be a criminal, brain studies show that teens are unable to make decisions efficiently which causes them to make the wrong decision, children from juvenile court to adult court actually increases crime, kids take risks in adult prisons and bring justice for extreme crimes.

One person may argue that young offenders that commit tremendous crimes should not be able to have these special privileges. What they may not realize is that young offenders can fall under what is called “the age of presumption”, which is when a young offender commits an indictable crime and is over the age of fourteen, but less than eighteen years of age. If a child is under this category, their crime can be punished by being given an adult sentence, but only if the child has committed first degree murder or a serious violent offence (Howard Society, 2008). The YCJA gives the opportunity to discipline youth criminals without treating them as harsh as adults would be.

There are no national standards that declare the exact age at when a defendant knows right from wrong; however, states have adopted a variety of laws declaring the age of criminal responsibility. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia have set eighteen as the age of criminal responsibility; however, most defendants, seventeen or younger may be tried in juvenile courts. Some states such as Wisconsin, North Carolina, New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois set their minimum age for criminal acts at sixteen. Despite that fact, that states set individual ages for juveniles to be to tried as an adult for the crime committed, it is accurate to note that juveniles can and have been tried as adults when under the minimum age within the state law.

As more minors are committing violent crimes, the question of whether they should be tried as adults has arisen. Children as young as 13 or 14 are committing violent crimes such as murder, rape, and armed robbery. Some of these children are being tried as adults while others are being tried as juveniles and receiving milder punishments. A juvenile offender may receive a few years in a juvenile detention facility and possibly probation following his release at age eighteen. An adult committing the same violent crime will receive a much harsher penalty, often years in jail, possibly a life sentence, with little or no chance of parole. The only difference between the two offenders is the age at which they committed the crime. Juveniles over

The rising viewpoint of the child savers was that of parens patriae which said that the state had an assenting duty to get involved and care for the less fortunate kids. In 1899, the first court devoted to hearing cases with juvenile delinquents was developed by the Illinois Legislature. The procedures in the juvenile court were much different from those of the criminal courts. The child would be accused of a crime they committed, but they were offered help, treatment, and direction (Myers, 2008). Juvenile hearings were held in private and the juvenile’s records were kept sealed to avoid the disgrace of a criminal conviction. Since the juvenile courts rejected punishment, they were allowed to have jurisdiction on things adult courts did not consider crimes. These offenses could be anything including truancy, disobedience, bad language, immorality, and vagrancy. Under parens patriae, the juvenile court was allowed to use wide range discretion to resolve the troubles of juvenile offenders and rejected the official procedures of the adult

The federal government of Canada fifteen years ago, in 1984, the Liberal party changed the Juvenile Delinquents Acts to the Youth Offenders Act to have a “More human approach to the rights of young people before the law”(Leschild and Jaffe, 8:1991). In the present such as Premier, Mike Harris, of Ontario wants the federal government of Canada to scrap the Young Offenders Act. In 1999, the same party that came up with the act is making majors changes to the act. This report will look at the young offenders act at the present time, look at why kids commit crime, what is being done to improve the act, what has the province done towards teenagers and also a look at the United Sates youth system.

  The punishment of juvenile criminals, specifically those between the ages of 13 and 18, in the event that they commit crimes of murder, is not severe enough. Minors between these critical ages in the teenage life who commit crimes of murder should be prosecuted as adults in all situations and locations.