This discussion will be on juvenile waivers. Should these be used to try juveniles in adult court? Why, or why not? If yes, under what circumstance? Discuss a juvenile who was waived and should not have been, or a juvenile you think should have been waived. In addition, should all states follow the same guidelines for waivers? Why, or why not?
A juvenile waiver is when a judge abandons the protections that juvenile courts provide, and transfers a case from juvenile court to adult court. “Usually, juvenile cases that are subject to waiver involve more serious crimes or minors who have been in trouble before” (Michon, n.d., para. 1). There are currently three main types of waivers. First, judicial waiver is the one most common and widely used. Typically, a judge will make the decision of whether a judicial waiver to adult court is required. Judicial waivers include examining the juvenile’s age, offense, maturity level, and relationship with parents, to name a few (OJJDP, 1997). Second, prosecutorial discretion waivers states, “Jurisdiction for certain cases is
…show more content…
In some cases, the crime committed by a juvenile is so egregious, that it belongs in adult court. The waivers presented in this discussion are juvenile friendly, containing many safeguards for juveniles. Take for example, the juvenile waiver, this waiver contains a list of pertinent questions about the juvenile’s history, which is addressed, before a waiver is considered. Another example, prosecutorial discretion waiver, this waiver makes decisions around one important factor, the age of the juvenile. And then we have statutory exclusion waivers, which states that juveniles in prison or not, are considered a protected population (OJJDP, 1997). Now, with that said, waivers should be used under special circumstances. Circumstances that involve heinous crimes, and felonies committed by
The Court ruled for the juvenile, stating that his rights to due process were indeed violated according to the Fourteenth Amendment. “The proceedings of the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Oyez, n.d.). The Court analyzed the juvenile court's method of handling cases, verifying that, while there are good reasons behind handling juveniles in a different way from adults, adolescents seeking to settling delinquency and detainment cases are qualified for certain procedural safeguards under the Due Process Act of the Fourteenth
One of the fasting growing juvenile treatment and interventions programs are known as teen courts. Teen courts serve as an alternative juvenile justice, to young offenders. Non-violent, and mostly first time offenders are sentenced by their peers’ in teen courts. Teen courts also serve as juvenile justice diversion programs. Teen courts vary from state to state, and sometimes within the same state. With this program, all parties of the judicial setting are juveniles with the exception of the judge. Each teen court, is designed specifically to meet the needs of the community it serves. Teen courts were created to re-educate offenders throughout the judicial process, create a program with sanctions that will allow the youth not to have a juvenile record, and to also instil a sense of responsibility.
Within the last five years, violent offenses by children have increased 68 percent, crimes such as: murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Honestly, with these figures, it is not surprising at all that the Juveniles Courts focus less on the children in danger, and focus more on dangerous children. This in fact is most likely the underlying reasoning behind juveniles being tried as adults by imposing harsher and stiffer sentences. However, these policies fail to recognize the developmental differences between young people and
The age of the offender determines whether they meet the requirements for a judicial waiver offense. With that said not every state offers all three of the methods a juvenile can qualify for a waiver. In the process of judicial waiver offense the judge takes the final decision on waiving a case. There are other factors that affect the judge’s final decision. Aspects like the criminal history of the offender or the severity of the crime are crucial for the waiver to take place.
Judicial waivers would become obsolete. The offenders left in the juvenile system (under age 16) would hardly present anymore than a handful of cases that might raise questions of fitness. If only 1% of older offenders under today?s system are waived, this problem will be mitigated.
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 entirely eliminating the use of the life without parole sentence for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the crime being charged.
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.
Transfer occurs when jurisdictions over a juvenile case is turned over to a criminal court, waiver or transfer of jurisdiction is predicated on the assumption that some juveniles are not appropriate for processing in juvenile court and can be more effectively dealt with by criminal courts (Elrod & Ryder, 2011). The juvenile court system may not be able to protect the community from such youth’s demands, therefore, they are to be identified and transferred to the adult criminal justice system (Elrod & Ryder, 2011). If a juvenile carries a serious threat or harm to the surrounding community, and the adult criminal court system has the proper methods of handling the situation to prevent any further harm from being inflicted upon the community and its people, then it is appropriate for the juvenile to be transferred to the adult criminal court system to receive proper sentencing.
3. The "excuse of age" dates back to common law regarding children that comment criminal offenses. Comment on the three age groups for determining childrens' capacity to commit crime and explain the "judicial waiver" process for transferring children to adult criminal courts where they can be tried as adults.
Many people say that the systems first priority should be to protect the public from the juvenile criminals that are a danger to others. Once the juveniles enter the system there is however, arguments on what should be done with them. Especially for those deemed too dangerous to be released back to their parents. Some want them locked away for as long as possible without rehabilitation, thinking that it will halt their criminal actions. One way to do this they argue would be to send them into an adult court. This has been a large way to reform the juvenile system, by lowering the age limits. I believe in certain cases this is the best method for unforgiving juveniles convicted of murder, as in the case of Ronald Duncan, who got away with a much lesser sentence due to his age. However another juvenile, Geri Vance, was old enough to be sent into the adult court, which caused him t...
The focus of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, rather than to imprison and punish like the systems adult counterpart. According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. This has lead to the development of a separate justice system for juveniles that was initially designed to assist troubled juveniles providing them with protection, treatment, and guidance. 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 Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “how can we help the child”, “why did the child commit the crime” to “was the crime committed”. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. The prerequisites for transfer to adult court are the duty to protect the public from violent youths, serious crime, and the lack of rehabilitation chance from the juvenile court. According to Flesch (2004) many jurisdictions handle the issue of serious juvenile crime by charging juveniles as adults. Charging a juvenile as an adult is done by a method which is called waiver to adult court. This waiver allows adult criminal court to have the power to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles and handle the juvenile’s case as an adult’s case would be tried. According to Flesch (2004) a juvenile is both tried and if convicted of the crime the juvenile will be sentenced as an adult when his or her case is waived from the juvenile court. Waiver to adult court initially was viewe...
There has always been controversies as to whether juvenile criminals should be tried as adults or not. Over the years more and more teenagers have been involved in committing crimes. In some cases the juries have been too rough on the teens. Trying teens as adults can have a both positive and negative views. For example, teens that are detained can provide information about other crimes, can have an impact in social conditions, and serve as experience; however, it can be negative because teens are still not mature enough for that experience, they are exposed to adult criminals; and they will lose out on getting an education.
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 juvenile system was first established in the United States around 1899 when Illinois had their first court appearance including a juvenile. This then led to the Nation’s first juvenile system being created, which was for youth under the age of eighteen who have been convicted of crimes. Up until then, most youth were tried as an adult until the system was put into place. The system has different sections in which they youth is taken in such as: intake, adjudication, disposition, and post adjudicatory.
Today?s court system is left with many difficult decisions. One of the most controversial being whether to try juveniles as adults or not. With the number of children in adult prisons and jails rising rapidly, questions are being asked as to why children have been committing such heinous crimes and how will they be stopped. The fact of the matter is that it is not always the children's fault for their poor choices and actions; they are merely a victim of their environment or their parents. Another question asked is how young is too young. Children who are too young to see an R rated film unaccompanied are being sent to adult prisons. The only boundaries that seem to matter when it comes to being an adult are laws that restrain kids from things such as alcohol, pornography, and other materials seen as unethical. Children that are sent to adult prison are going to be subjected to even more unprincipled ideas and scenes. When children can be sent to jail for something as minor as a smash and grab burglary, the judicial system has errors. The laws that send juveniles to adult prisons are inhumane, immoral, and unjust. Kids are often incompetent, which leads to unfair trials. Adult prisons are also very dangerous for minors, and in many cases this leads to more juvenile crimes.