What Is The Juvenile Court System

The juvenile justice system is a foundation in society that is granted certain powers and responsibilities. It faces several different tasks, among the most important is maintaining order and preserving constitutional rights. When a juvenile is arrested and charged with committing a crime there are many different factors that will come in to play during the course of his arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing, and rehabilitation process. This paper examines the Juvenile Justice System’s court process in the State of New Jersey and the State of California.

The Juvenile Justice system, since its conception over a century ago, has been one at conflict with itself. Originally conceived as a fatherly entity intervening into the lives of the troubled urban youths, it has since been transformed into a rigid and adversarial arena restrained by the demands of personal liberty and due process. The nature of a juvenile's experience within the juvenile justice system has come almost full circle from being treated as an adult, then as an unaccountable child, now almost as an adult once more.

The United States juvenile justice court was based on the English parens patriae adopted in the United States as part of the legal tradition of England. But the efforts of the state to rehabilitate juvenile offenders with institutional treatment with the houses of refuge and reformatories failed. Today, the United States has 51 different juvenile court systems; the laws and statutes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Thus, each state’s approach to handle the youth offenders is responsible for how the youth offenders will experience the justice system. Both the past and the present approaches to deal with juvenile offenders have shaped today’s juvenile justice system.

Unfortunately, in a society dominated by material wealth and status, young individuals often make drastic errors in judgment. Many young individuals, attempting to mimic their role models, pursue endeavors that are as unprofitable as there are detrimental. Activities such as theft, assault, burglary, and vandalism are all common mistakes that young individuals in society make. The reasons for such activity are as varied as they are bizarre. However, society must account for these infringements on individual rights with proper correctional initiatives. One of these initiatives, geared primarily towards young adults, is centered on juvenile court. Juvenile court provides services and support to youth between the ages of 10 and 17. The primary goal of this supervision is to monitor and assist children in hopes of returning these individuals back to society in a productive manner. The Juvenile Court Services unit of Kenosha Wisconsin is no different in this regard as it attempts to aid its youth by preventing destructive behavior from occurring (Dishion, 1999).

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.

The border between juvenile justice and criminal justice did not endure the juvenile court’s first century. By the 1980s, there was general disappointment with both the means and the ends of normal juvenile justice. As with every other social repair efforts, it is difficult to say whether frustration with juvenile justice was born of erroneous concept or of wretched execution. The administering accepted by justice policy, however, was unmistakable. Juvenile courts began to adopt the sentiment and standpoint of criminal courts. Many States redesigned their laws to curtail the confidentiality of juvenile court proceedings and juvenile court records. Most States increased the legal etiquette used in juvenile court and shifted the objective of the juvenile justice process away from individualized intervention. Instead, juvenile courts and juvenile justice agencies began to focus on public safety and criminal accountability. In addition, nearly All States enacted laws to toss more youths to criminal court where they could be tried and punished as adults. In the span of a single century the American justice system had favorably embraced and then largely abandoned the concept of using a alternative legal system for crimes committed by the young. No single concern in juvenile justice has captured the attention of the public or of policymakers like criminal court transfer. Conflicts over the transfer issue command the clearest and most candid dispute over the juvenile-criminal

“The juvenile justice system was first created in the late 1800s to reform United States policies on how to handle youth offenders. Since that time, a number of reforms - aimed at both protecting the "due process of law" rights of youth, and creating an aversion toward jail among the young - have made the juvenile justice system more comparable to the adult system, which is a shift from the United States’ original intent (2008,Lawyer Shop.com).” The

The first juvenile court in the United States was established in Chicago in 1899. The first juvenile court in the state of Georgia was in Fulton County in 1911, now there is one in every county. Juvenile courts in Georgia are controlled by a 1971 law known as the juvenile code. The philosophy of the juvenile courts is to protective of the child rather than punitive. The court must do what is best for the interest of the child while considering the best interest of society.

To completely understand the current issues surrounding the direction of the juvenile justice system is easy to obtain when one focuses on how the juvenile justice system has changed since its inception. The United States wanted to reform its policies for dealing with juveniles that enter the justice system, so in the late 1800’s was the beginning of a number of reforms. Several reforms focused on protecting the rights of youth, such as through “due process of law”. The United States has shifted from their original intent and purpose for the juvenile justice system to a system more comparable to the adult justice system.

Kathleen Blanco governor of Louisiana from 2004 to 2008 said, “Think about it: Every educated person is not rich, but almost every education person has a job and a way out of poverty. So education is a fundamental solution to poverty.” Every year thousands of students exit our educational programs not knowing how to read or write. How can we help these people? Do we just to throw up our hands in the air hands and proclaim that is not my problem? According to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), two thirds of students who cannot read proficiently by the end of fourth grade will end up in jail or welfare. 85% of all juveniles who interface with the juvenile court system are functioning illiterate. More than 60% of all prison inmates

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.

Our current juvenile court system began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The ultimate goal of having a separate court system for juveniles is to rehabilitate young offenders rather than punish them. The court also hopes to deter young offenders from preforming further delinquent behavior. Unlike the adult court system, juveniles do not have the right to a public trial by jury. Instead, they undergo an adjudication hearing where the judge rules whether the juvenile is a delinquent. Since this separation, several studies have been conducted to weigh the benefits and costs; such as effectiveness, efficiency, and cost of resources, of having two court systems. Is the United States juvenile court appropriate or should it be abolished? Abolishing the juvenile court system would mean juveniles and adults would both undergo the same criminal justice system. Rothstein states in his research that juvenile courts are a cost-effective way to handle less serious offenses by children (as cited in Acker, Hendrix, and Hogan, and Kordzek, 2001, p. 200). On the other hand, Robert Dawson (1990) argues that there are not enough legal differences between juvenile and adult courts for there to be a need for a separation, concluding that overlap between both systems is so great that having a juvenile court is unnecessary. Supporting this argument, Barry Feld (1997) calls the two systems “duplicative” (p 69).

This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.

The nation’s first juvenile court was established in 1899 as a part of the Juvenile Court Act. It was founded on three principles: juveniles are not ready to be held accountable for their actions, are not yet fully developed, and can rehabilitate easier than adults. In all but three states, anyone charged with committing a criminal act before his or her eighteenth birthday is considered a juvenile offender. Now more than ever, states and countries have begun to question the reliability of the juvenile court. Some believe the juvenile court system should be abolished because of its insufficient gain to the community. Others believe children are not fully capable to understand the degree of their actions and the consequences that come from them and believe that juvenile courts are a necessity in the court system.

The juvenile justice system was founded on the belief that children are different from adults; therefore, the justice system and corrections sanctions for juveniles should acknowledge the differences. “Rising juvenile crime rates during the 1970s and 1980s spurred state legislatures across the country to exclude or transfer a significant share of offenders under the age of eighteen to the jurisdiction of the criminal court” (Fagan, 2008). The acknowledgement of these differences should be the bases for a proper juvenile justice system. The examination of the juvenile justice’s systems history, trends, and causation theories will provide an insight into the future of the juvenile justice system.