More handpicked essays just for you.
Juvenile court system
Differences between the adult court system and the juvenile court system essay
Juvenile court system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The case of John M is a difficult and multi-faceted problem and there are several considerations that must be addressed before determining whether he should be transferred to adult court for trial. The first issue that must be considered are the accrual crimes that he committed. In the case study, John commits robbery and a sexual assault. The commission of these two crimes necessitates a dual analysis. If the only issue that required adjudication was the robbery, then the most appropriate placement for this offense would be the juvenile justice system. Since the juvenile justice system is modeled more towards rehabilitation than punishment. It would make sense to have John placed in this system to address the underlying reasons and causes of the robbery. It is likely that John’s upbringing in a low-income home with limited role models were factors that lead to this type of delinquent behavior. An ideal juvenile justice system would have …show more content…
Sexual assault is a heinous crime and the age and vulnerability of his victim makes the analysis more complicated. The fact that a young neighborhood girl was the victim and that her assault required hospitalization and extensive counseling indicates that the most appropriate forum for dealing with this crime is adult court. The facts of this case evokes an initial reaction that John needs to be punished for this crime. In this case, rehabilitation is a secondary issue when the facts of the sexual assault and the long term effects of the victim are considered. According to the lecture notes, juvenile correction placements could be structured so that the juvenile is in a juvenile detention facility until they reach the age of eighteen or twenty-one and on their requisite birthday, the juvenile would then be transferred to an adult correctional facility. This type of structure is a worthwhile consideration for
The adult system’s shifts leaked into the juvenile system, causing an increase in incarcerations even when delinquency rates were declining at the time. Juvenile reform legislations prompted more compulsory sentencing and more determinate sentences for juveniles, lowering of the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction, considerable ease in obtaining waivers to adult court for juvenile prosecution, and made it easier to gain access to juvenile records as well. Furthermore, it led to greater preoccupation with chronic, violent offenders, which in turn led to a redirection of resources for their confinement. Thereby, the absence of reliable criteria for identifying such offenders tends to stereotype all delinquents and is more likely to raise the level of precautionary confinements. These three major shifts in juvenile justice policy demonstrate the power and depth of traditional beliefs about the causes and cures of crimes in U.S. society. It also shows how the system can bend for a time in the direction of new approaches to prevention and control. Today, we are presently in a time of conservative responses where the prevailing views about crime express beliefs about prevention, retribution, and incapacitation that are profoundly rooted in our
Thompson was tried as a juvenile offender until the Oklahoma attorney court general’s office filed a petition asking for Thompson to be tried as an adult for the crime and the court eventually agreed. The main two arguments for the plaintiff were that juveniles historically have been been less culpable for crimes than adults because of less intelligence
The Tennessee vs. John T. Scopes trial was a high school biology teacher who went against the state of Tennessee for supposedly teaching students about the theory of evolution however, teachers were not aloud to teach this subject due to the Butler Act. This law was passed by the state of Tennessee stating, “forbidding the teaching in public schools of any theories that denied the story of creation as found in Genesis. This act was written because of the increasing alarm of many fundamentalist Christians who feared the challenge that science and evolutionary theory presented to a literal interpretation of the Bible”("The Scopes Trial, 1925."). Scopes was appointed to go against the grand jury, with the trial being highly publicized throughout
The problem of dealing with juvenile justice has plagued are country for years, since the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899. Prior to that development, delinquent juveniles had to be processed through the adult justic3e system which gave much harsher penalties. By 1945, separate juvenile courts existed in every single state. Similar to the adult system, all through most of the 20th century, the juvenile justice system was based upon a medical/rehabilitative representation. The new challenges of the juvenile court were to examine, analyze, and recommend treatment for offenders, not to deliver judgment fault or fix responsibility. The court ran under the policy of “parens patriae” that intended that the state would step in and act as a parent on behalf of a disobedient juvenile. Actions were informal and a juvenile court judge had a vast sum of discretion in the nature of juvenile cases, much like the discretion afforded judges in adult unlawful settings until the 1970s. In line with the early juvenile court’s attitude of shielding youth, juvenile offenders’ position was often in reformatories or instruction schools that were intended, in speculation, to keep them away from the terrible influences of society and to encourage self-control through accurate structure and very unsympathetic discipline. Opposing to the fundamental theory, all through the first part of the century, the places that housed juveniles were frequently unsafe and unhealthy places where the state warehoused delinquent, deserted, and deserted children for unclear periods. Ordinary tribulations included lack of medical care, therapy programs, and even sometimes food. Some very poor circumstances continue even today.
Vandiver, D. M., & Teske, R. (2006). Juvenile female and male sex offenders a comparison of offender, victim, and judicial processing characteristics. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(2), 148-165.
In the last 42 years little to no changes have been made to correct the standards that govern punitive measures towards juvenile delinquency. Today juvenile law is governed by state and many states have enacted a juvenile code. However, in numerous cases, juveniles are transferred to adult court when juvenile courts waive or relinquish jurisdiction. Adolescents should not be tried in the adult court system or sentenced to adult penitentiary's on account of: teen brains are not mature which causes a lack of understanding towards the system, incarceration in an adult facility increases juvenile crime, and children that are sentenced to adult prison are vulnerable to abuse and rape.
With increased media coverage of violent juvenile behavior, legislators began to pass laws to toughen up on juvenile crime. Many laws made it easier to waive juveniles into adult courts, or even exclude juveniles who had committed serious crimes from juvenile court jurisdiction. Furthermore, the sentences to be handed out for offenders were lengthened and made much more severe. As a result, the juvenile courts began to resemble the adult courts. Yet, this movement’s influence began to fade, and by the turn of the century, another shift had occurred. In the current juvenile courts, a balanced approach is emphasized. While the court deals with chronic and dangerous offenders with a heavy hand, needy youth who need help to get back on track are still assisted under the parens patriae philosophy. Restorative justice has come to be the preferred method of today’s juvenile courts. In an overall sense, the modern juvenile court has taken on a paternalistic view similar to parens patriae towards youths who are in need of guidance, while punitively punishing offenders who do not respond to the helping hand extended to
What is important to understand in terms of the difference between the juvenile and adult system is that there is a level of dependency that is created between the two and the juvenile system focuses on how to help rather than in prison individuals at such a young age. However, it usually depends on the type of crimes that have been committed and what those crimes mean for the families and how they impact the greater society. The adult system distinguishes between dependence and delinquency mainly because there is a psychological transition that occurs with juveniles that is not always a predictor of a cyclical life of crime. However, if an adult is committed to the justice system, there can be a dependency of delinquency and a cycle of crime that is more likely to be sustained at that age and level of cognitive ability than in comparison to a juvenile. The reasoning behind this is important is that it is focused on maintaining a level of attention to the needs and capacity abilities of individuals living and working in different types of societies (Zinn et al., 2017).
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.
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While California's juvenile population rose by a half a million since the middle and late 1970's, juveniles made up less than fifth-teen percent of California's felony arrests in 1998, compared to thirty percent in 1978; according to the Justice Policy Institute. The juvenile arrests have dropped back, even as the population of kids between ages of ten and eight-teen has continued to grow, and the number of kids confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA) has fallen. With all the progress our society has made in cutting back in juvenile crimes there is still a very serious problem. But if locking kids up is the best way to address it, how do we explain a drop in crime when there are more teens in California and fewer in custody? First we must look at the economy around us. With so many job opportunities available more and more teenagers find honest ways to keep busy and make money. Our generation has a brighter future than the generation a decade ago. Next we look at successful crime prevention efforts: after-school programs, mentoring, teen outreach programs, truancy abatement, anti-gang programs, family resource centers. There is evidence that these programs are beginning to pay off. Sending more, and younger teens through the adult court system has been a trend across the country in reaction to crimes, such as school shootings and violent rapes. Yet evidence shows that treating youth as adults does not reduce crime. In Florida, where probability wise more kids are tried as adults then in any other state, studies found that youth sent through the adult court system are twice as likely to commit more crimes when they're release...
Harassment, reckless endangerment, and burglary are all juvenile offenses. These juvenile offenses almost always stay on the juvenile’s criminal record, and the offenses displayed on a juvenile’s criminal record may cause employers, educators, and other authority figures to think less of the juvenile offender. As a viewer can see, this one mistake or lapse in judgment can ruin the juvenile offenders chance to further their success in life. For example, juvenile offenders may not obtain the dream job that they have always wanted, get into the college that they have always wanted to, or be eligible for a scholarship whether athletic or academic. However, there is a loophole in the juvenile justice system called teen courts. Teen courts give first-time offenders and some re-offenders a second chance because the offense (s) do not go on their criminal record, and their peers get to decide what sanctions the juvenile offender receives or performs. The big question that I am going to discuss throughout this essay is do juvenile offenders who appear before teen courts recidivate?
for youngsters who have a long history of convictions for less serious felonies for which the juvenile court disposition has not been effective” (qtd. in Katel).
The United States has been affected by a number of crimes committed by juveniles. The juvenile crime rate has been increasing in recent years. Everyday more juveniles commit crimes for various reasons. They act as adults when they are not officially adults. There is a discussion about how juveniles should be punished if they commit heinous crimes. While many argue that juveniles who commit serious crimes, such as murder, should be treated as adults, the fact is, juveniles under the age of eighteen, are not adults, and should not be treated as such.
The dilemma of juvenile incarceration is a problem that thankfully has been declining, but still continues to be an ethical issue. The de-incarceration trend has coincided with a decrease in crime. It is hopeful that our nation is changing the approach to the treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. It means we know what to do and what is working, now just to follow through and continue the change to creating a juvenile justice system that is truly rehabilitative and gives youth tools to be able to be positive members of
Much controversy exists on the question of whether a juvenile criminal should be punished to the same extent as an adult. Those who commit capitol crimes, including adolescents, should be penalized according to the law. Age should not be a factor in the case of serious crimes. Many people claim that the child did not know any better, or that he was brought up with the conception that this behavior is acceptable. Although there is some truth to these allegations, the reality of this social issue is far more complex. Therefore we ask the question, "Should childhood offenders of capitols crimes be treated as adults?"