Applying What You Have Learned By Hayley Cisper

Juvenile Delinquency “Applying What You Have Learned” Chapter 13

Hayley Cisper

University of Central Oklahoma

Juvenile court judges encounter tough decisions on how to handle juvenile delinquents. The juvenile court judge holds the fate of the juvenile by determining the best course of action that is in the best interest of the juvenile and families involved. In the specific case of John, many aspects of the case need to be analyzed in order to determine the best solution for him. The juvenile court judge must find a solution that best fits John’s need for treatment and the needs for public protection.

Juveniles make mistakes on a daily bases. Some make more detrimental mistakes than those of their peers. John is a juvenile the age of 14 who made a detrimental mistake when he rapped a girl that lives in his neighborhood. Currently, the

prosecutor has waived jurisdiction to the adult court. However, under existing law of the state, a sufficient amount of evidence needs to be shown that the juvenile system cannot successful treat or rehabilitate John. In turn, if John is transferred to the adult court system, this could implicate his need for treatment and need for public protection.
The prosecutor of the case has attempted to wave jurisdiction to the adult court. One of the three waiver procedures is statutory exclusion policies. This policy states, “certain offenses are automatically excluded from juvenile court” (Siegel & Welsh, p. 362). The offenses that can be excluded can be minor or major offenses. In the case of John, he committed a serious offense according to the statutory exclusion policy. In turn, John could be transferred to the adult court due to his age. John committed the crime at the age of 14. Many state statues allow “jurisdiction transfers between the age of 14 and 17” (Siegel & Welsh, p. 362). However, many “juvenile justice experts oppose waivers because it clashes with the rehabilitative ideals” (Siegel & Welsh, p. 363). In turn, the judge must then decide whether to allow the case to waived to the adult court system or if there are other possible solutions that are in the better interest of the juvenile.
The ideas of transferring juvenile court cases to adult court conflicts with the purpose of having a juvenile system.

The juvenile system is based on the ideas of treatment and rehabilitation, while the adult system is based on the ideas of punishment. Another issue arises when discussion of waiving cases to the adult system due to juvenile mental capacity. Studies found that the “mental capacity of youth under the age of 16 to stand (adult) trial is far below that of a similarly charged adults” (Siegel & Welsh, p. 365). Therefore, this proves that many juveniles do not understand the consequences of their action and should not be sentenced the same.

The juvenile court judge must always consider the best interest, solution, and needs for the juvenile, as well as the protection of the juvenile. As a juvenile court judge on John’s case, the judge will resolve the case in one of three ways. The best fitting solution is the “findings of fact that the juvenile is delinquent or in need of supervision” (Siegel & Welsh, p. 368). Following this decision, the judge will determine the best need for treatment for

John.
The commitment to secure treatment is a largely better option for John than being incarcerated. It not only is a better option, but it also protects John from “institutions where they (he) may be physically and sexually exploited” (Siegel & Welsh, p. 365). Therefore, the best solution for John’s treatment needs and protection would be commitment to secure treatment. The commitment to secure treatment is a “long-term treatment center, such as training school, camp, ranch, or group homes.” (Siegel & Welsh, p. 372). If this is not a readily available option, the use of a detention facility may also be an option to the juvenile court judge’s decision. This would also be beneficial to John because many “experts maintain that detention centers provide youth with treatment” (Siegel & Welsh, p. 361).
As a juvenile court judge, the recognition and severity of the case is important, however, to use the adult system on a juvenile who does not have the same mental capacity of an adult who committed a similar crime is unfair. This brings on the issues of “punishing people for what judicial authorities believe they may do in the future because it is impossible to predict who will be a danger to the community.” (Siegel & Welsh, p. 357). Therefore, a juvenile should not be punished but treated. The best solution that fits the needs and protection of John is leaving the case in the juvenile court system.
The juvenile court judge must make decisions based on the interest of the juvenile, as well as families. The victim in the crime should always be considered but not in the deposition hearing. The victim is a fact of the case, however, in the case of a juvenile court case, the judge must remained focus on what the best possible treatment and rehabilitation the juvenile will need, as well as the juveniles own protection.
In conclusion, the best solution that fits John’s need for treatment and public protection is to continue the case in the juvenile justice system. If John’s case was transferred to adult court, it could potentially place John at a high risk for harm. As previously mentioned John could get publically or sexually exploited. The use of the adult system would also prevent John from rehabilitation and treatment. In regards to John’s need for treatment, the best option would be the commitment to secure treatment or a detention center. Both would provide treatment and rehabilitation for John as well as protection.

References
Siegel, L. J. & Welsh, B. C. (2014). Juvenile Delinquency: The Core. (5Th Ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.