Procedural Requirements of the Juvenile Justice System
When it comes to influencing the procedural requirements of the juvenile justice system, there are several major cases that have been of significant influence. In order to understand the ramifications of such cases, it helps to have a clear understanding of the procedural requirements of this system from the outset. This is a much different system than the adult process that most people know at least a little bit about.
The first major procedural difference is that law enforcement detains juveniles instead of arresting them (Reichel, 2002). Following this step, a petition is create that stipulates the fact that the juvenile court has authority of the juvenile and the related offense, after which a court appearance is set and a notice is sent to the family of the detained individual (Reichel, 2002). This is also the document that is utilized in the
Moreover, it should be noted that juveniles don’t get tried by a jury in juvenile court, which is a distinct difference from that of the adult system (Butts and Mitchell, 2000). Rather, the judge hears the evidence in question and issues a ruling accordingly. From this point, the court decides what to do. While the goal in adult court is punishment and then rehabilitation during that period, the sole focus in juvenile court is rehabilitation (Butts and Mitchell, 2000). Therefore, juvenile sentences tend to focus on those things that can aid in this rehab process, versus simply keeping the individual in question detained. The reason that the juvenile courts focus so heavily on rehabilitation is the age of the offender and the fact that the underlying cause of juvenile criminal issues can often be more easily addressed in their still impressionable states than
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
The process of transferring juveniles to adult courts has shown no effects on decreasing recidivism or a deterrent outcome. Waiver as it is known has three means by which a juvenile can be transferred to an adult court. Judicial waiver offenses, statutory exclusions, and concurrent jurisdiction are the three methods in which a waiver can occur. This research will describe each one of these methods with detail. It will also provide statistical facts showing why waiver can be a very debatable topic within the juvenile criminal justice system. In its totality it will discuss the arguments for and against waiver.
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.
Police officers have a great amount of discretion. Since they are not always supervised and on patrol they choose which cases should be process and which one should just be not. Police discretion is the most important part because it determines the outcomes of the interaction between the police and the juvenile. Krisberg and Austin noted that police have five basic options in deciding what course of action to pursue with juveniles. The first one would be release, accompanied by a warning to the juvenile. The second one would be release, accompanied by an official report. The third one would be Station adjustment. Which include release to parent accompanied by an official reprimand, referral to a community youth agency, or referral to a public or private social welfare or mental health agency. Fourth would be Referral to juvenile court without detention and last referral to the juvenile court with detention.
The inappropriate or unnecessary use of incarceration is “expensive, ineffective, and inhumane,” and initiates a “cycle of juvenile reoffending” (Bala et. al, 2009). A study conducted by Mann (2014) exemplifies this cycle of youth reoffending. The youth interviewed demonstrated that despite a stay in sentenced custody, the threat of future punishment was not enough to deter from future offences. Cook and Roesch (2012) demonstrate that youth have developmental limitations that can impair their involvement in the justice system; for example, not understanding their sentencing options properly or their competence to stand trial. Therefore, deterrence as a justification for youth incarceration is ineffective, as incarceration proves to be not a strong enough deterrent. Alternative methods such as extrajudicial measures and community-based sanctions were considered more effective (Cook & Roesch,
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.
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.
The historical development of the juvenile justice system in the United States is one that is focused on forming and separating trying juveniles from adult counterparts. One of the most important aspects is focusing on ensuring that there is a level of fairness and equality with respect to the cognitive abilities and processes of juveniles as it relates to committing crime. Some of the most important case legislation that would strengthen the argument in regard to the development of the juvenile justice system is related to the reform of the justice system during the turn of the 19th century. Many juveniles were unfortunately caught in the crosshairs of being tried as adults and ultimately receiving punishments not in line with their ability to understand their actions or be provided a second chance.
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 book “No Matter How Loud I Shout” written by Edward Humes, looks at numerous major conflicts within the juvenile court system. There is a need for the juvenile system to rehabilitate the children away from their lives of crime, but it also needs to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous of its juveniles, causing one primary conflict. Further conflict arises with how the court is able to administer proper treatment or punishment and the rights of the child too due process. The final key issue is between those that call for a complete overhaul of the system, and the others who think it should just be taken apart. On both sides there is strong reasoning that supports each of their views, causing a lot of debate about the juvenile court system.
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.
This is a hearing since the juveniles do not stand before a trial. The hearing will be scheduled by the intake officer. While proceeding to the court, the judge may talk to the people concerned about the juvenile, evaluate any evidence that was collected if a crime was committed or any other complaints against the juvenile, and consider the youth’s previous history if any crimes were committed and how many times the juvenile has been in trouble with the law. The judge will then order an outcome which can result in probation, institutionalization, formal diversion, or even holding the juvenile for charges against him or her. Probation is supervised and the juvenile must stay at home or in a community setting, but must report to his or her officer regularly. The juvenile must follow all probation conditions granted by the court such as obeying the laws, staying in school, staying away from drugs and alcohol and other requirements instructed. Institutionalization is a form of detention system that is to rehabilitate deviant youths. They also serve as a protection for at-risk youths. There are two types of Juvenile institutions: Long-term correctional and short-term temporary care. Long-term includes, for the most part, training schools, youth ranches and camps, and boot camp. They also usually place male and females separately. Short-term facilities include jails, shelters, detention homes, and reception areas. In the facility you also
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
June/July 21-26. Eldelfonso, Edward. A. Law Enforcement and the Youth offenders: Juvenile Procedures. New York: Wiley, 1967. Hyde, Margaret O. & Co.
Juvenile delinquency is one of the major social issues in the United States today. Juvenile delinquency, also known as juvenile offending, is when “a violation of the law committed by a juvenile and not punishable by death or life imprisonment” (Merriam-webster.com). Although we have one justice system in America, the juvenile system differs from the adult juvenile system. Most juvenile delinquents range from as low as the age of seven to the age of seventeen. Once the delinquent or anyone turns the age of eighteen, they are considered an adult. Therefore, they are tried as an adult, in the justice system. There are many different reasons why a child would commit crime, such as mental and physical factors, home conditions, neighborhood environment and school conditions. In addition, there are a variety of effects that juvenile justice systems can either bad effects or good effects. Finally there are many different solutions that can reduce juvenile delinquency. As a result, juvenile delinquency is a major issue and the likeliness of it can be reduced. In order to reduce juvenile delinquency there has to be an understanding of the causes and the effects.