More handpicked essays just for you.
Periods of juvenile justice history
The component of the juvenile justice system
The component of the juvenile justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
During the late 1800’s there was a decision made that children that had been accused of a crime would not be given the brutal treatment and punishment that the accused adults get. But instead they would help make sure the child knew what they had done wrong. They would try to “fix” the child. It first started with a trained social worker gathering information about the child’s background, history, likes, and dislikes. They would then head over to the judge tell or give them the data. After this the judge will discuss with the child about their troubles. Then it would be decided what would happen to the child, whether they would be given a warning, be on an experimental period, transferred to somewhere else, or if they would be sent to a place …show more content…
to reform or train/teach them about the rights and wrongs. The very first place that had started a separate court of law for youths or people who were not adults would be the state of Massachusetts in 1872. But then Illinois was the first to permit the other courts for the people who were younger which was in 1899. However later by 1925 forty eight of the fifty states had separate courts for the juveniles. The Supreme Court in 1967 had created the official decision of how when children are evaluated by the trained social worker and judge, the results cannot determine or cause the children’s civil right to be taken away, as had been determined by the Gault decision. These would include but are not limited to, “(1) the right of children and their parents to be given adequate notice of the specific charge; (2) the right to have a lawyer in any case which may result in confinement; (3) the right to question witnesses; and (4) the right to remain silent.” Caseload A special presidential commission had failed in their trying to reduce the number of juvenile crimes in 1967. Since this juvenile courts have been using methods that are similar to what are used in adult criminal courts. But a major difference would be how in juvenile court systems there is a much larger need for retraining, or trying to “fix” the juveniles of what they do wrong. In 1997 there was a number of 1,755,100 crimes in the U.S. that are handled by juvenile courts. Forty-eight percent of the crimes nationwide were property offenses. Then the most serious charges were twenty-two percent in person offense, nineteen per cent public order offense, and ten percent in drug problems. Of all the crime cases handled by U.S. Courts of Juvenile System of Laws fifty-seven percent of them were formally processed, this means that fifty-seven percent of the youth charged with crimes were charged along with a petition. In 1997 fifty-eight percent of these cases were determined in juvenile court, prone to committing crime but one percent were sent to adult courts. These occurrences of them being transferred to adult courts was typically found in formally processed cases of person or drug offense (one point five percent person offense and one point one percent drug offenses). Twenty-eight percent of these delinquency cases caused the accused youth to be moved somewhere away from home. Fifty-five percent of them were on probation in 1997. Criticism and Retrenchment A few decades after the juvenile court had been founded some who had been observant had realized that perhaps those who created these laws and had these objectives about juvenile courts had gone too far. In juvenile courts particularly in urban areas although it applies to everywhere in the U.S. they had begun to display some of the worst aspects of criminal courts. Which would include careless staff, overwhelming amount of cases, and decrepitude court rooms. There had been word of how juvenile courts were charged of having contravened the policies of the ways of a juvenile, which was for instance equal protection this was determined by activists. There was frustration that came from understanding of how the juvenile court was as worse as criminal court. Instead of individually evaluating the youths committed of crime the focus was more towards making sure that it didn’t and wouldn’t harm the citizens. There was also less emphasis on personal information of the child’s court records and court events. Also there were laws enforced of sending the youth criminals to criminal adult court, were the punishments would be those given to adults. The concept of observing the children's crimes as something other than crime, for example the information you collect about the child from it and how you can fix the problem. This theory was at first encouraged, and embraced but now, a century later, is greatly turned down. Remade Juvenile Court The juvenile court had been remade into what was more seen as criminal court.
Although there are many different ways the juvenile court has been structured across the nation, there still exists the basic concept everywhere. The laws, and rules over these have been changed and made to include the general processes and procedures that previously existed.
In some societies, and neighborhoods a juvenile court is not present in that area. This means that in youth delinquency cases where there is not a juvenile court they must result to the subdivision of a court. For example, superior or circuit court. In Connecticut the delinquencies would be handled in the Superior court. This court is general jurisdiction. The one-hundred-fifty-nine counties of Georgia each have juvenile courts. There is a completely separate court for juveniles in Georgia although there is limited power of making legal conclusions. Inside of Connecticut there are thirteen districts that are responsible for taking care of juvenile crimes. However the criminal and civil matter are distributed among twenty-two different areas of Connecticut. The juvenile courts of Utah are single for all of the state with limited jurisdiction. Among the eight judicial districts, twenty different branches are split. Unlike Utah, Denver has a different court for juveniles, and it is a court that has general decision making
…show more content…
rights. The juvenile court’s job is to take care of all of crimes committed by youths that if committed by adults would have to be taken to some sort of court. These crimes can include offending a person with assault, homicide, robbery, etc. or another serious offense like using setting fires, drugs, weapons, and property. Some crimes are very small like bothersome of peace, vandalism, dawdling, etc. Different states have different rules for until what age the juvenile court is responsible for juvenile crimes.
Although more commonly seen is up until the age of seventeen. In the states of New York, Connecticut, and North Carolina the age the highest age would be fifteen. In the ten states of Illinois, Georgia, South Carolina, Michigan Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Texas, and Wisconsin the highest age is 16. The upper age would be seventeen in the Columbia District and the remaining states. There are always exceptions with this as there are rules of how they can be under the age limit but depending on crime there is a chance that they could have to go to criminal
court. The rules, goals, and processes of all juvenile courts are different. Many different states during the 1980s and 1990s changed the legal goals and purposes of juvenile courts to make it so that they pay more attention to punishments and liabilities. In the states of Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, and the Rhode Island juvenile court must get accurate authority from the lawmakers to hold the child accused of crime, then they can depending on jurisdiction how they are going to take care of the child and which punishment will be given. Some places care more for retraining and re teaching the child and preventing this from happening again such as Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia. However the main purpose and goal of all juvenile courts no matter where it is would be to a mix of rehabilitating the child, make sure they know what they have done wrong and also keep it from happening again so that the public will be protected.
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.
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.
In 1899, the juvenile justice court system began in the United States in the state of Illinois. The focus was intended to improve the welfare and rehabilitation of youth incarcerated in juvenile justice system. The court mainly was focused on the rehabilitation of the youths rather than punishing them being that they still have immature ways and still growing. Specialized detention centers, youth centers, and training schools were created to treat delinquent youth apart from adult offenders in adult facilities. “Of these, approximately 14,500 are housed in adult facilities. The largest proportion, approximately 9,100 youth, are housed in local jails, and some 5,400 youth are housed in adult prisons” (Austin, 2000).
This quote by Edward Humes sums it up the best, “The fundamental question Juvenile Court was designed to ask - What's the best way to deal with this individual kid? - is often lost in the process, replaced by a point system that opens the door, or locks it, depending on the qualities of the crime, not the child.” (No Matter How Loud I shout, 1996, p. 325). The courts need to focus on what is best for the child and finding punishment that fits the child not the crime.
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.
This paper will analyze the different theoretical issues pertaining to the modern juvenile court, determine their origin, and suggest a course of action for resolving these issues to the best extent possible. It is important to note, however, that the juvenile justice system alone cannot ever prevent all juvenile crime, respond perfectly to every situation or treat every suspect fairly. Furthermore, an effective antidote to modern juvenile crime would necessitate far broader action, addressing underlying social structure inequalities that breed poverty and social disorganization.
Legal procedures and laws that relate to juvenile offenders go back thousands of years when children disobeyed their parents, and sons would curse their fathers. The Roman civil law and canon law 2,000 years ago distinguished juveniles and adults based upon the idea of “age of responsibility”. The Moslem law also believed in leniency in punishing youthful offenders and children under the age of 17 be exempt from the death penalty. Roman law children under the age of 7 were classified as infants and were not held criminally responsible. If the youth were approaching the age of puberty and knew the difference between right and wrong, at that time, they would they be held accountable for the crimes they committed. In the 15-Century, England created a petition to those in need of aid or intervention, generally for women and children who were in need of assistance because of divorce, death of a spouse, or abandonment. The king could exercise the right of parens patriae, which became a basis for the juvenile court in America and was a doctrine that gave the courts authority over juveniles that were in need of guidance and protection, and would allow the state to act in loco parentis (in place of the parents) and to provide guidance and make decisions concerning the best interest of the child. Another pivotal point in the development of the juvenile justice system in America was what became known as the “child-saving movement”. T...
The juvenile court system and the adult court system are two different systems. They work in different was and have different goals when dealing with someone who appears in court. They have different procedures and different rules to go by. The adult court system started before the juvenile court system.
Serious crimes such as murder, burglary and rape have raised questions as to whether the young offenders should face severe punitive treatment or the normal punitive measures in juvenile courts. Many would prefer the juveniles given harsh punishment in order to discourage other young people from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to these particular offenders. However, results from previous studies indicate such punitive measures were neither successful nor morally acceptable. Instead, the solutions achieved have unfairly treated the youths and compromised the society status (Kristin, page 1).
Before the Progressive Era, children who were over the age of seven were put in jail with adults. In the early part of the 1800’s reformers started to become concerned with the overcrowded environment in the jails and prisons, and the corruption young kids were experiencing when locked up with adult prisoners. The Progressives in the late nineteenth century started to push for universal reform in the criminal justice system (Myers, 2008). The Progressives looked to move away from the penalizing aspect and more towards a rehabilitative system, with regard to the rectification of delinquent children and adolescents. A specific group of Progressives, called the "child savers," focused the majority of their attention on finding and curing the causes of juvenile delinquent behavior. The child savers group viewed the juvenile offenders as adolescents in need of care and direction, not punishment (Myers, 2008). In In re Gault (1967), Justice Fortas summed up the views of the child savers: “The early reformers were horrified by adult procedures and penalties, and by the fact that children could be given long prison sentences and thrown in jails with toughened criminals. They were overwhelmingly convinced that so...
Harassment, reckless endangerment, and burglary are all juvenile offenses. These juvenile offenses almost always stay on the juvenile’s criminal record, and the offenses displayed on a juvenile’s criminal record may cause employers, educators, and other authority figures to think less of the juvenile offender. As a viewer can see, this one mistake or lapse in judgment can ruin the juvenile offenders chance to further their success in life. For example, juvenile offenders may not obtain the dream job that they have always wanted, get into the college that they have always wanted to, or be eligible for a scholarship whether athletic or academic. However, there is a loophole in the juvenile justice system called teen courts. Teen courts give first-time offenders and some re-offenders a second chance because the offense (s) do not go on their criminal record, and their peers get to decide what sanctions the juvenile offender receives or performs. The big question that I am going to discuss throughout this essay is do juvenile offenders who appear before teen courts recidivate?
In chapter 10 the book talks about Juvenile courts. Juvenile court is a court of law that has jurisdiction over minors. The purpose for juvenile courts is to offer juveniles justice and treatment. In most states, juvenile court purpose clauses fall into one or more of five categories (Synder and Sickmund 2006, 98). The five categories are balance and restorative justice clauses, standard juvenile court act clause, legislative guide clause, clauses that emphasize punishment and traditional child welfare. In all states the courts puts children under three classification. The first one is those who are neglected or abused. The second is status offenders. The third is those who broke the law. There has been several issues on deciding if a child can tried in an adult court. What’s the appropriate age? The nature of the crime depends on if the child will be tried in adult court or not.
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.
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.