More handpicked essays just for you.
Paper on the u.s juvenile justice system
Juvenile crime and consequences
Paper on the u.s juvenile justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Paper on the u.s juvenile justice system
The original jurisdiction for prosecution in juvenile court depends on the state, typically with an upper age of fifteen, sixteen, and/or seventeen. In the juvenile courts, violations of criminal law are referred to as delinquency cases. In 2009, US. courts with juvenile jurisdiction handled more than 1.5 million delinquency cases (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2014). In a 2012 landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court struck down laws that mandate a life sentence for convicted juvenile offender which was Miller v. Alabama. The Court held that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments” and that a “judge or jury must
In the United States Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons of 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in a five to four ruling that the death sentence for minors was considered “cruel and unusual punishment,” as stated by the Eighth Amendment, according to the Oyez Project online database. Christopher Simmons, the plaintiff, was only seventeen at the time of his conviction of murder. With the Roper v Simmons, 2005 Supreme Court ruling against applying the death penalty to minors, this also turned over a previous 1989 ruling of Stanford v. Kentucky that stated the death penalty was permissible for those over the age of sixteen who had committed a capital offense. The Roper v. Simmons is one of those landmark Supreme Court cases that impacted, and changed Simmons had become a landmark case, it quickly brought it into the sight of the public, as well as the legislative branch. With growing public dissent against using foreign law in national cases, Congress even entertained the idea of reprimanding, or revoking, the Supreme Court’s ability to employ international references when it came to such instances (“Debate Over Foreign Law in Roper v. Simmons”).
The article titled “ Juvenile Justice from Both Sides of the Bench”, published by PBS, and written by Janet Tobias and Michael Martin informs readers on numerous judges’ opinions on the juveniles being tried as adults. Judge Thomas Edwards believed that juveniles should not be tried as adults because they are still not mature enough to see the consequences of their actions and have a chance to minimize this behavior through rehabilitation programs. Judge LaDoris Cordell argues that although we shouldn’t give up on juveniles and instead help them be a part of society, however, she believes that some sophisticated teens that create horrible crimes should be tried as adults. Bridgett Jones claims that teens think differently than adults and still
Life is precious and we live it only once, however, what we do with it is to our own discretion. It is a shame that many people at young ages decide to live a life of misdeeds and become what we call juvenile criminals, but, every action has a consequence and to deal with these unlawful adolescent we have the Juvenile Justice Department. The juvenile justice system is a network of agencies that deal with juveniles whose conduct has come in conflict with the law. These agencies include police, prosecutor, detention, court, probation, and the Department of Juvenile Corrections. However, when young offenders commit a series of crimes, constantly being in trouble with the law, they are waivered into Adult court where they will be subject to any
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.
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).
Miller v. Alabama was a case that was taken to trial on March 19, 2012. The case was resolved on June 24, 2012. The case involved Evan Miller and violating the eighth amendment with respect to life sentences. The eighth amendment states that excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The main impact this case had on criminal law was the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to give a life-without-parole sentence on someone who was a minor at the time of the crime committed. Miller v. Alabama was a case where the eighth amendment was violated due to unusual punishment placed upon a fourteen year old boy and a impact
The following assertion intends to provide an in-depth insight into my personal experience observing a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. This paper will outline a selection of many pressing issues noticed throughout my observation, more specifically those regarding the law and language in legal arenas along with symbolic and architectural traditions that reinforce prejudice towards those from a low socio-economic background and ethnic minority groups. Furthermore, it will argue how symbolism, architecture and practices within a court are in place to create a power dynamic and reinforce the courts British-'western' sovereignty and royal-like wealth which in turn intimidates members of the community especially from ethnically diverse or disadvantaged groups. I intend to demonstrate the power and authority of judges and the courts by drawing comparisons between the judges status in a court room with royalty and religious pastors, through the observation of attire, title and actual positioning in a court room.
In 1899, the nation’s first juvenile court for youth under the age of 16 was established in Chicago to provide rehabilitation rather than punishment. By 1925, following the Chicago model, all but two states had juvenile courts whose goals were to turn youth into productive citizens utilizing treatment that included warnings, probation, and training school confinement(Cox et al. 2014, p.2). Treatment lasted until the child was “cured” or turned 21. Although judges spoke with the offending children and decided upon the punishment, the lack of established rules and poor rehabilitation led to unfair treatment. In 1967 “ U.S. Supreme Court case of In re Gault held that juveniles were entitled to the same constitutional due process rights as adults, beginning a national reform in juvenile justice and the system was repaired to afford children many of the same rights that adults have in court” (Cox et al. 2014, p.4). Also, state legislatures passed laws to crack down on juvenile crime, as recently, states have attempted strike a balance in their approach to juvenile justice systems as research suggests that locking youth away in large, secure juvenile facilities is ineffective treatment towards different genders in which it doesn’t provide appropriate rehabilitation.
In juvenile court, the judge must decide if the teen gets tried as an adult or minor. If the juvenile gets sent to a juvenile detention center for murder they will live their lives there until they are twenty one, but if tried as an adult they will serve so many years in prison. There is a grey area of law for certain teens that commit serious crimes. In this case of the grey law, each state gets to decide upon the particular state how they person is tried. For most cases pertaining to the juvenile courts are case by case bases. Many believe that it isn’t fair for the teens to be locked up with adults. The U.S. House of Representatives made the Juvenile Justice Act encouraging states to find alternatives to having the teens go through such a process with people much older than themselves (Locked Up…).
Scott is a Harold R. Medina Professor of Law at Columbia University. In her article, published in the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, she explores the principle that “children are different” from adult offenders, and as children they should be treated as such. Scott examines three Supreme Court opinions that have created a special status for youth offenders under the Eighth Amendment. Scott also delves into the science supporting this as well as the implications for juvenile crime regulation. Stevenson, Bryan, author.
Due to the increased recognized differences between adults and juveniles in terms of needs and developmental capabilities, offender’s treatment differ depending on whether they are treated in an adult or juvenile court. In the adult court jurisdiction, public safety and retribution are the most salient tenets while in the juvenile courts the best the intentions are intended towards the best interest of the child focusing on rehabilitation. The best goals and objectives of the juvenile court sanctions aim at ensuring that the youth in trial at the juvenile court desists from delinquent behavior and thus easy to be reintegrated in the society once more. This fact is mainly achieved through offering the youth individualized case management programs
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).
Juvenile delinquency is a serious problem and leads to negative outcomes for youth, families, and society as a whole. Adolescents under the age of 18 who are arrested for committing a criminal act are processed through a juvenile justice system. The juvenile justice system is grounded on the principle that the youth have different needs than adults. During adolescence, youth are forming their identities and still developing mentally, physically, socially, and emotionally. Due to their early stages of development, juveniles who violate the law should be treated differently than adults.
The punishment of juveniles by execution is a longstanding practice in our nation’s history. Throughout the last few decades, the U.S. Supreme court has been asked to determine if the execution of a juvenile, sixteen or seventeen years old at the time of the offense, represents cruel and unusual punishment. In various rulings, the U.S. Supreme court has interpreted cruel and unusual punishment to include penalties that are excessive, not proportioned to the offense, and those that do not consider the defendant’s degree of criminal culpability. One case in particular that addresses the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles is the landmark court case Roper v. Simmons.