They claimed that society could control juvenile delinquency if it attacked its causes—namely, poor education, poor morals, and poor standards of behavior—thus alerting juveniles to their wrongdoings in society. The child savers, mostly women, were self-proclaimed altruists and humanitarians who focused on protecting the interests of all children in an increasingly industrialized society, particularly those in the lower class. Their mission was to rehabilitate deviant youth without the stigma of a lifetime criminal record.
Although the child savers claimed to be a neutral group, critics contended that the movement was more an effort to control lower-class children than protect these juveniles from societal harm. While the act did not create a new legal system for juveniles, its rules of procedure, outlining the best court practices when considering juvenile cases, were extensively copied.
These procedures followed the British legal concept of parens patriae, a doctrine whereby the State acts in the best interests of the child through the protection, supervision, and upkeep of juveniles within its jurisdiction. This gives the court sentencing discretion, such as probation under guardianship, placement in a school of detention or reformatory, and protection from incarceration with adult offenders.
One key distinction of the juvenile court is the privacy of a juvenile criminal record, thus preventing the stigma of a permanent adult record. The doctrine of parens patriae was so dominant in the early stages of the juvenile justice system that in Commonwealth v. Acting in the best interests of the child, in most situations, suggests that the goal of the courts is rehabilitation so that juveniles can become productive members of the community.
Even with the establishment of a system focused on parens patriae, opponents questioned its effectiveness in rehabilitation, particularly if juveniles were held in institutional settings not unlike adult prisons. Critics argued that if juveniles faced an institutional setting similar to that of adults, then these juveniles should also have the same constitutional due process protections as adults during the trial and sentencing phases of the adjudication.
This is where the law enforcers decide where the victim will be punished or taken to other court procedures. Usually, juvenile cases are heard and solved in juvenile courts but such heavy cases like the armed robbery, the prosecutor may decide to take it to a criminal court. A delinquency petition is then formed to inform the judge of the claims against the teenager, and he is asked to hear and decide the case Fradella, All the testimonies and witnesses including the officer who arrested the youth are expected to say something at this stage.
This is done in a criminal court after the intake officer, or the prosecutor has sent a waiver petition. This will finally lead to other stages of prosecution and verdict given by the judge.
In the case of an imprisonment statement, the juvenile is taken to a youths' prison different from the standard adult one. From the perspective of the defendant response guidelines, the adult court process and punishment is the most appropriate.
It is evident that the victim participated in a robbery while armed. According to Hahn, et al. It is necessary, therefore that a stern, similar and appropriate action be taken to criminals regardless of the age to make them learn and be a lesson to the remaining who may attempt to join the victim's school of thought.
Concisely, the court process is not equal due to consideration of various factors majorly age. This is an advantage to youth offenders since the law tends to be slightly soft on them giving them different options to enable them to retract and rejoin the healthy direction. This sounds contrary to that of the adults. Boston College Type of paper: This approach involved, among others, reduced confidentiality for trial hearings which characterized the traditional juvenile justice system and contextual-based referral for criminal courts and adult correctional sanctioning in sharp contrast to the Act.
That is, age alone is no longer the only parameter for the type of court and the subsequent procedures and punishment methods. These changes and others, which took place during the s, have positively affected the number of crimes committed by youth and reduced the number of juvenile murderers.
Nonetheless, despite the positive results of the punitive policies during the last decade, other findings may imply that this line may worsen the situation in the long run. Most of the criticism refers to the tendency to handle juvenile cases in the adult criminal justice and lockup systems, which may lead to increased criminal activities rather than reducing it.
Nevertheless, we should rethink and adjust the policies in reference to empirical evidence, in order to achieve the highest effectiveness of preventing juvenile offenders to lifetime criminals. That is, the nature and circumstances of juvenile delinquency raise into discussion several main inherent moral and ethical dilemmas: The Legacy of Punitive Policy.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6, pp. Youth under age 18 in the adult criminal justice system. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32 4S , pp.
Juvenile Justice essays In the society we live in today, juvenile justice is a nation wide concern of law enforcement. However to what extent the laws and penalties used towards the youth of today has been a major focus of many criminologists and organizations around the nation.
The Juvenile Justice System is defined as that "sociolegal process having responsibility and authority for public reaction to current juvenile delinquency and deterrence of future juvenile delinquency, including within that process the public and private agents, agencies, laws, rules, and policies having to do with juvenile delinquency"(Weiner.
All those factors and others imply that the juvenile justice system should be coherently different from the adult criminal justice system. The rationale for behind giving special handling with young offenders is the idea of parens patriae (the state as parent). Juvenile Justice System Essay The U.S. juvenile justice system is currently designed to address the special needs of minors who engage in criminal acts but might not yet be held fully responsible for their behavior, as they .
Juvenile justice system essay. In any jurisdiction, there are laws or rules put in place to govern all the activities of the region. Going against the rules means a court process exposure, which will determine what will happen at the end of the day. These courts exist in two forms, juvenile court for children under 18 years, and the adult court. This paper examines juvenile and criminal justice policies and practices with respect to young offenders who cross over from the juvenile to the criminal justice system. /5(10).