Transfer To Adult Court

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

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

With this message directed towards juveniles, as well as the likely chance that juveniles whom are transferred to the adult criminal court system will result in some type of incarceration, this may lead to a deterrence of violent or misbehaved actions committed by juveniles in an attempt to avoid these prosecutions. These statements conducted by Urbina and White (2009), are statements to consider on the issue of a juveniles transfer to adult criminal court. Although there are strong facts to support this type of transfer for juveniles, Urbina and White (2009) also found that this might not be the best option in some cases. There have been studies that showed juveniles whom were transferred to the adult criminal court system and sent to adult jails were more likely to re-offend and with more serious crimes than did their juvenile counterparts (Urbina & White, 2009). With this study that was conducted, it adds doubt to the fact that juveniles should be transferred to the adult criminal court system. Although, at times, this may be the best option for serious and violent repeated offenders, it is not likely that this process will have a positive affect on the juvenile or the community. Urbina and White (2009) continue to lack strong argumentative evidence to show the exact times that transferring a juvenile to the adult criminal court system is the

Juvenile Transfer to Adult Courts: A Look at the Prototypes for Dangerousness, Sophistication-Maturity, and Amenability to Treatment through a Legal Lens http://psycnet.apa.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/journals/law/8/4/373.html

The dilemma of whether or not to transfer juveniles to adult court has been a major topic, for many years, in the United States. Since 1899, judges have had the option to transfer juveniles to adult court. The major factor for transferring juveniles to adult court since then has been the seriousness of the offense. That being said, juveniles only make up a small portion of violent crimes in the United States. Only 16 percent of juvenile offenders in 2008 were arrested for violent crimes (Champion,2008). The problem is the determination of whether the crime is serious enough to be waived and transferred to adult court. Almost every state has statutory judicial waiver provisions, which grant juvenile judges the authority to transfer

Juvenile delinquency has become a controversial issue within the Criminal Justice system. In the United States, juvenile delinquency refers to disruptive and criminal behavior committed by an individual under the age of 18. In many states, a minor at the age of 16 to 17 ½ can be tried as an adult. Once the individual reaches adulthood, the disruptive and criminal behavior is recognized as a crime. However, the criminal justice system has divided juvenile delinquency into two general types of categories that has brought upon controversial issues of inequality and corruption. Yet, putting young individuals in juvenile detentions facilities seems to open the door for them to commit more crimes in the future. Therefore, under certain circumstances juveniles should be tried as an adult.

According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “was the crime committed” to “why did the child commit the crime”, “how can we help the child”. When performing as it is designed and up to the initial intentions, the juvenile court balances rehabilitation (treatment) of the offender with suitable sanctions when necessary such as incarceration. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. In this paper I am going to discuss the three primary mechanisms of waiver to adult court: judicial waiver

In all reality “…rates of juvenile offending are not lower in states where transfer to adult court is more common” (Hodgdon 1). They should have the ability to change their lives and receive guidance that will lead them toward a path of a new and better

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

By law adolescents are not able to vote, purchase tobacco or alcohol, join the armed forces, or sign a legal contract. Children are not permitted the same rights and responsibilities as adults because the law recognizes their inability to make adult decisions. The law acknowledges that children are unable to handle the consequences that come along with the rights that adults have. By allowing them to be charged as adults is holding them to a double standard. Telling them that they are not old enough to enjoy the same luxuries as adults, but they can experience the same punishment as adults if they commit a crime. The law acknowledged the inability of children to make decisions but still allows them to suffer the same consequences as adults. Research demonstrates that transferring children from juvenile court to adult court does not decrease recidivism, and in fact actually increases crime. Instead of the child learning their mistake they are more likely to repeat it. Juvenile detention centers have programs that help reconstruct young minds and help them realize where they went wrong. Prison does not offer this same opportunity. (Estudillo, Mary Onelia)

A comparison of young offenders charged in New Jersey’s juvenile court and in New York’s criminal court shows that youths convicted for serious crimes in criminal courts repeated crimes at a higher rate after their release than the ones tried in juvenile courts. From the many research conducted, the following is evident; transferred juveniles are more likely to offend, and there is a greater likelihood of re-arrest of offenders. In fact, a hundred-percentage likelihood of re-arrest of violent offense criminals, and these transfers increase recidivisms among the offenders (Lonn, page 82).

In the latter part of the twentieth century juvenile justice practitioners and policy makers have had mixed emotions on how exactly the juvenile justice system should function and ultimately what purpose does it serve. In regards to youthful offenders the juvenile justice system was created to protect the child by offering alternative sanctions rather than the harsh punishment of the adult criminal justice system. Feld (1997) suggests that the aftermath of Gault and Winship has undeniably transformed the juvenile court system from a social welfare agency in a wholly-owned subordinate faction of the criminal justice system. With that in mind, one may assume that the emphasis of the juvenile court was to determine if a youthful offender was or should be labeled as a

Juvenile delinquency has been a problem in the United States ever since it has been able to be documented. From 100 years ago to now, the process of juvenile delinquency has changed dramatically; from the way juveniles are tried, to the way that they are released back into society, so that they do not return back to the justice system (Scott and Steinberg, 2008). Saying this, juveniles tend to

It is a common believe that adolescents require a special system thru which be processed because they are “youth who are in a transitional stage of development…young offenders that are neither innocent children nor mature adults…” (Nelson, 2012). Because juveniles are in a process of constant development sociologically, psychologically and physiologically, the juvenile court system focuses on alternative sentences and the creation of programs that will offer them rehabilitation instead of incarceration. However, in cases of extraordinary circumstances, the juvenile system shifts from looking at rehabilitation as a first choice to accountability and punishment (Read, n.d). All levels of society are collectively involved in delinquency

For example, in 1996 the legislature in the state of Missouri lowered the minimum age for transfer from fourteen to twelve (Zierdt, 1999, p.419). States in favor of this kind of shift justify the transfer because chronic juvenile offenders in rehabilitation centers will likely disrupt the reformation of other juvenile offenders as they are considered as a bad influence on them. It is thus, considered that in not transferring the juveniles in adult prisons, these chronic juvenile offenders disrupts the growth and development of other teens undergoing rehabilitation.