In modern society, most often you hear a crime committed by a juvenile referred to as a delinquent act and not a criminal offense. Early on in U.S. history, there was no difference between a “child” breaking the law or an “adult” breaking the law – they were treated exactly the same. Let’s rewind to the 18th century. Traditionally, anyone below the age of 7 was recognized as an “infant” and therefore was thought to be below the age of reasoning. This meant that anyone under age 7 was not capable of criminal intent and exempt from punishment for their acts and from serving any prison time. This was all fine and dandy, except for the fact that meant that anyone over the age of 7 could be held responsible for their actions. However, there was …show more content…
Yet, that beginning provided the foundation for how our Nation deals with juvenile offenders. A century ago, “the focus of the juvenile justice system was on the juvenile offender—rather than the offense—and that remains largely true today” (Martin, 2005). The juvenile court system is based on “the principle that youth are developmentally different from adults and more amenable to intervention” (Martin, 2005). At its best, the juvenile court “balances rehabilitation and treatment with appropriate sanctions—including incarceration, when necessary” (Martin, …show more content…
At the expiration of this term, twelve of the boys were brought into court at one time, and the scene formed a striking and highly pleasing contrast with their appearance when first arraigned. The judge expressed much pleasure as well as surprise at their appearance, and remarked, that the object of law had been accomplished and expressed his cordial approval of my plan to save and reform" (Martin, 2005). When a juvenile is sent to adult court, there is never any chance at rehabilitating them then. By the mid-18th century, facilities just for juveniles were being built in most major cities across the United States. These facilities generally were privately owned early on and many of them began to come under fire for harsh treatment and abuse of these juveniles. Because of these accusations, in the 19th century, many states decided that they must now take on the responsibility of operating these juvenile detention
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
The modern teen court concept began in the early 1970’s when a small number of local communities in America began to establish the first Global Youth Justice programs (Peterson, p. 2). In 1994 there were 78 youth court programs in existence. As of March, 2010, there are over 1,050 youth court programs in operation in 49 states and the District of Columbia. Teen courts serve as a “diversion” program used to divert first time offenders away from a lifetime of criminal activity. The primary function of most teen court programs is to determine a fair and restorative sentence or disposition for the youth respondent. Although the primary function of teen courts is to rehabilitate offenders, some may wonder if teen courts are actually beneficial to young offenders.
Studies and anecdotes have shown that our modern approach, however, is ill-equipped to reduce crime or deal with chronic delinquents while at the same time protecting their due liberties. We now stand on the precipice of decision: How can we strike an appropriate balance in the juvenile justice system? Should we even retain a separate system for children at all? The answers are usually difficult, sometimes subtle, but always possible to attain.
...ing beckoned in with the 21st century. While U.S.’s JLWOP laws are inconsistent with many human rights treatises and with international law, it is more important for our policies to be based on a thorough understanding of the issue- the most essential being a separation of the processes for juvenile and adult criminal offenders. With an emphasis on rehabilitation for juvenile offenders, and the goal of encouraging maturity and personal development after wayward actions, the futures of many teens in the criminal justice system can become much more hopeful.
Throughout the history in the article “Early in U.S. history, children who broke the law were treated the same as adult criminals” (1999) that was written by the Bulletin: Juvenile Justice, explains around the nineteenth century, young children at age seven who are accused for a dishonest behavior were to be imprisoned either with the adult or sentenced to death if found guilty on stand trial in criminal court offenses (1999).
According to the authors of And Justice for Some, between the years 1985 and 1997, the number of juveniles placed in state prison more than doubled (Poe-Yamagata & Jones, 2000). While they are separated from the adult population if they were tried in the juvenile courts, when a juvenile is waived to the adult court, they are incarcerated with adult inmates in jails and prisons. In the past years, the courts are moving away from case-specific decisions on waiving juveniles to the criminal courts and are now considering the waiver on offense seriousness. This means that even if a person commits a crime at a very young age, if the offense is seriousness, they face the criminal courts. States try about 200,000 juveniles in adult courts every year because their juvenile courts end at fifteen or sixteen years of age, instead of seventeen; in addition, other states try about 55,000 more juveniles even though they were within the ages for their juvenile jurisdiction (Feld, 2008).
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.
Vandergoot determines that the reasoning capacity of an adolescent, the ability to make legal decisions, and filter unnecessary information is unclear to a juvenile in the justice system; the vagueness of youth stepping into the courts prevents them from fully participating in the justice system. ( Vandergoot, 2006). As a result of this impreciseness youth encounter Vandergoot concludes a separate justice system allocated for youth to adhere to adolescent needs. Vandergoot discusses the Youth Criminal Justice Act a justice system devised to adhere to youth needs. She summarizes the system that benefits young offenders in contrast to adult offenders.
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. Edward Humes follows the cases of seven teenagers in juvenile court, and those surrounding them.
Throughout the years there has always been one question, what will we do with the juveniles when they entire the justice system? Here is the answer to that, the first juvenile court in the United States was established in Chicago in 1899 over 100 years ago. There have been significant modifications made to the juvenile court system since the late 1960’s due to Supreme Court decisions, federal legislation, and changes in the state legislation. Up until these changes were made, children who broke the law were treated the same as adult criminals. Children as young as seven years old who were accused of wrongdoing were imprisoned with adults. “In the early nineteenth century, the idea of reforming youth offenders took root in the United States & The House of Refuge in New York, which opened in 1824, was the first juvenile house of reform in the United States. This was the first attempt to house juvenile offenders in a separate facility and other States, like Maryland, would soon follow suit” ("History of the Juvenile Justice System," n.d.).
The future of the juvenile justice system is promising. The methods and approaches utilized should continue to improve in the next twenty years in the same way that they have improved over the past twenty years. Addressing the main factors that contribute to juvenile offending will help to solve the problem of delinquency in the United States. Juveniles in the present system do have the ability to straighten out their lives. This might be less challenging for them than it has been in the past, but hopefully the future will make the road to reform easier for them.
Late eighteenth and early nineteenth century was the beginning of creating a difference in the way delinquents were handled. Historically, an offender who was above seven years of age was imprisoned together with the adults. Though an offender who was between seven and fourteen years of age was presumed as one who is not able to form the required criminal intent it gave the prosecutor room to prove otherwise. A house referred to as the New York House of Refuge was established by reformers in 1824, and it was meant to curb the problem of sending a child offender to an adult jail. In 1899 a juvenile court was established in Cook County, Illinois and another one in April 1905 in Birmingham (Shore). There was an educational reform movement that advocated for reform in juvenile justice. The movement was referred to as the Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency. The main issue that legislation and movements sought to address was the separation of delinquents from the adult offenders. In a case of an adult offender the court looks at the act committed. However, with the emergence of juvenile courts the focus is on the delinquent who is viewed as a child, and who needs to be helped. In the spirit of ensuring that trials against children were handled in a speedy and in a confidential manner, children below fourteen years were tried immediately before two magistrates (19th Century Bedford Gaol).
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.
I feel that I learned quite a bit throughout this semester in Juvenile Justice. It is interesting to me how much the juvenile justice system has changed both for the better and for the worse. From the time of the child savers to the get tough movement, which we are still experiencing, the entire system has shifted almost entirely. It began as a system of helping and not punishing and now has shifted to a system that severely lacks rehabilitation programs for juveniles. I have spoke, in my previous reaction papers, of what I would do to change the juvenile justice system – focusing strictly on the idea of rehabilitating juveniles to make them functioning members of our society. I firmly believe that in almost all cases, a child deserves a second chance and should be given appropriate treatment.
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.