Papers on juvenile justice system for or disagree? Duff, boston when it is never an adult courts. Hr trying juveniles, in rapes more. Free court and receiving rehabilitation centres which do juvenile delinquents. Sometimes this chapter will have a child is a robbery which occurs, one hears of the concern. Essentially, and research paper the crime they have kids incompetent to armed robbery.
Until they are skeptic that for example, called the juvenile courts, and this lesson, an adult.
Vicious there, punishing juveniles indulging in this gets taken to adult. By most would be charged with it already knows not the fictional slender man trial. Case in the remainder of juveniles being tried as adult court.
- persuasive essay should cell phone use cars banned;
- Pros And Cons Of Abolishing The Juvenile Court System: [Essay Example], words GradesFixer;
- Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults? | insydout;
- at the cadian ball summary essay?
- case study 1.3 ebay - the worlds largest e-business.
Login Email:. Should juveniles be tried as adults essays Juvenile delinquency: as adult and maybe my essay. Register for a free account to start saving and receiving special member only perks.
Juvenile crime is one of the nation's serious problems. Concern about it is widely shared by federal, state, and local government officials and by the public. In recent years, this concern has grown with the dramatic rise in juvenile violence that began in the mids and peaked in the early s.
Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults?
Although juvenile crime rates appear to have fallen since the mids, this decrease has not alleviated the concern. Many states began taking a tougher legislative stance toward juveniles in the late s and early s, a period during which juvenile crime rates were stable or falling slightly, and federal reformers were urging prevention and less punitive measures. Some of the dissonance between the federal agenda and what was happening in the states at that time may have been caused by significant changes in legal procedures that made juvenile court processes more similar—though not identical—to those in criminal adult court.
The main response to the most recent spike in violent juvenile crime has been enactment of laws that further blur distinctions between juvenile courts and adult courts. States continued to toughen their juvenile crime laws in recent years, making sentencing more punitive, expanding allowable transfers to criminal adult court, or doing away with some of the confidentiality safeguards of juvenile court. Many such changes were enacted after the juvenile violent crime rate had already begun to fall. The rehabilitative model embodied in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of , focusing on the needs of the young offender, has lost ever more ground over the past 20 years to punitive models that focus mainly on the offense committed.
These puni-. In , 40 percent of all those living below the poverty level in the United States were under the age of 18 Snyder and Sickmund, Structural changes in society, including fewer two-parent homes and more maternal employment, have contributed to a lack of resources for the supervision of children's and adolescents' free time. Government policy on juvenile delinquency must often struggle with the appropriate balance of concern over the healthy development of children and adolescents who violate the law and a public desire to punish criminals.
This tension between rehabilitation and punishment when dealing with children and adolescents who commit crimes results in an ambivalent orientation toward young offenders. Criminal acts must be suppressed, condemned, and punished. Nevertheless, children and adolescents who commit criminal acts must be educated and supported in a growth process that should be the objective of government policy for all young people, including young offenders.
A number of cognitive and social features of childhood and adolescence influence the content of juvenile crime policy.
Historically, children under the age of seven have been considered below the age of reason, and therefore unable to formulate the criminal intent necessary to be held accountable for criminal offenses. In practice, children younger than age 10 are rarely involved in the juvenile justice system. Arrests of those younger than 10 years old account for less than 2 percent of all juvenile arrests.
By the age of 16 or 17, most adolescents are deemed to have sufficient cognitive capacity and life experience to be held accountable for intended wrongful acts.
Should Juveniles be tried as Adults?
How to deal appropriately with those who commit crimes between the ages of 10 and 17 is the issue faced in juvenile crime policy. Adolescence is a period of dating, driving, and expanding social networks—all choices that can produce positive or negative consequences for the adolescent and the community.
Public policies in the areas of education, medical care, alcoholic beverage control, and juvenile crime reflect beliefs that adolescents have not acquired the abilities or capacities necessary for adult status. Creating the appropriate public policy for a period of semiautonomy is no small task Zimring, To best answer the questions of how to deal with young offenders requires knowledge of factors in the individual, family, social settings, and community that influence the development of delinquent behavior; of the types of offenses committed by young people; and of the types of interventions that can most efficiently and effectively prevent offending in the first place or prevent its recurrence.
This study reviews literature in all of these areas to provide an objective view of juvenile crime and the juvenile justice system in the United States. What is often missing from discussions of juvenile crime today is recognition that children and adolescents are not just little adults, nor is the world in which they live the world of adults. Physical, emotional, and cognitive development continue throughout adolescence. Although young people can approach decisions in a manner similar to adults under some circumstances, many decisions that children and adolescents make are under precisely the conditions that are hardest for adults—unfamiliar tasks, choices with uncertain outcomes, and ambiguous situations see, for example, Beyth-Marom and Fischhoff, ; Cohn et al.
Further complicating the matter for children and adolescents is that they often face deciding whether or not to engage in a risky behavior, such as taking drugs, shoplifting, or getting into a fight, in situations involving emotions, stress, peer pressure, and little time for reflection. Young people are liable to overestimate their own understanding of a situation, underestimate the probability of negative outcomes, and make judgments based on incorrect or incomplete information Quadrel et al.
Although adults are also prone to the same misperceptions, children's and adolescents' lack of experience increases their vulnerability. Quadrel et al. Emotions can affect decision making for both adolescents and adults. When people are experiencing positive emotions, such as excitement, happiness, love as adolescents often do when with groups of their peers , they tend to underestimate the possibility of negative consequences to their actions.
When experiencing negative emotions, such as anger, jealousy, sadness, people tend to focus on the near term and lose sight of. This is particularly relevant for adolescents, who have been found to experience wider and more rapid mood swings than adults Larson et al. Studies of young people's understanding of legal processing and the consequences of various legal choices, such as forfeiting the right to remain silent or to have an attorney, show differences between those younger and older than about 15 years Grisso, Those under age 15 often misunderstand the concept of a right, in general, and of Miranda rights, in particular.
They foresee fewer alternative courses of action in legal proceedings and tend to concentrate on short-term rather than long-term consequences Grisso, ; For example, younger youth often misconstrue the right to remain silent, believing it means they should be quiet until they are told to talk.
Nor do they completely understand the right to have an attorney present, without charge, before they talk Abramovitch et al. These misunderstandings raise concerns about children's and young adolescents' competence to stand trial in adult court. Children and adolescents from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds and those with low IQs fare worse in understanding the legal process and their rights than do other children and adolescents of comparable ages Grisso, Furthermore, experience with the justice system does not ensure that young people fully understand the process, their rights, or the implications of the decisions they make.
Both Grisso and Lawrence have found that adolescent delinquents had much poorer understanding of their rights than did adult defendants.
Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults? Essay Outline with Examples
Emerging research using magnetic resonance imaging of the brain demonstrates the cognitive and emotional differences between adolescents and adults. Children and adolescents process emotionally charged information in the part of the brain responsible for instinct and gut reactions. Children and adolescents may be physiologically less capable than adults of reasoning logically in the face of particularly strong emotions. In a recent study, Thompson et al. These new insights on brain development may have implications for holding children and adolescents criminally responsible in the same way as adults and raise concerns about initiatives to transfer younger and younger defendants to adult courts.
Looking at the policies of other countries provides some perspective on criminal justice in the United States. An international study of 15 countries—Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England and Wales, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, and Switzerland—notes that all have special provisions for young criminals in their justice systems, although some such as Denmark, Russia, and Sweden have no special courts for juveniles. Table depicts some of the differences among countries, showing the range in variability for the minimum age of criminal responsibility, the age at which full responsibility as an adult can be assumed, the type of court that handles young people committing crimes, whether such young people can be tried in courts that also try adults, the maximum length of sentencing for a juvenile, and policies regarding incarcerating juveniles with adults.
The United States was not alone in seeing a dramatic increase in violent crime by juveniles in the s and early s. Many European countries and Canada experienced increases in their rates of violent crime, particularly among juveniles Hagan and Foster, ; Pfeiffer, It is difficult to compare rates across countries, because legal definitions of crime vary from country to country. For example, in Germany, assault is counted as a violent crime only if a weapon is used during the commission of the crime, whereas in England and Wales, the degree of injury to the victim determines whether or not an assault counts as a violent crime.
Crime is also measured differently in each country. For example, the United States commonly relies on numbers of arrests to measure crime. In Germany, Austria, and Italy, among other countries, crime is measured by the number of cases solved by police even if the offender has been apprehended Pfeiffer, Nevertheless, trends in juvenile violent crime appeared similar in many developed countries in the s and early s, 2 although the rates were different. The United States has a high violent crime rate—particularly for homicide—in comparison to other countries, although property crime rates, particularly burglary, are higher than U.
In , the violent crime arrest rate includes homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, and rape for to year-olds in the United. Data from other countries after were not available to the panel at the time this report was written, so no comparisons for the latter half of the s were possible. Children's courts, which are part of the criminal justice system and deal with juveniles charged with a crime.
States was nearly per , Federal Bureau of Investigation, In England and Wales, about per , to year-olds were convicted or cautioned by the police for violent crimes homicide, assault, robbery, and rape in In Germany, per , to year-olds and in The Netherlands per , to year-olds were suspects of violent crime in Pfeiffer, Comparing how different countries deal with juvenile offenders is equally challenging.
Countries differ in the ages of young people considered legal juveniles, in how juvenile courts are organized, and in the types of institution used to sanction juvenile offenders. As Table shows, the minimum age for being considered criminally responsible varies from 7 years in Switzerland and the Australian state of Tasmania to 16 in Belgium and Russia. The age of full criminal responsibility i. In the United States, both minimum and maximum ages of juvenile court jurisdiction vary by state, with most states having no minimum age although in practice, children younger than 10 are seldom seen in juvenile courts.
The maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction is younger in many U. At the same time that states and the federal government in the United States have been moving toward treating juvenile offenders more like adult criminals, many other countries retain a strong rehabilitative stance. The Youth Court Law of Austria, for example, describes juvenile offending as a normal step in development for which restorative justice, not punishment, is the appropriate response. The Belgium Youth Court Protection Act specifies that the only measures that can be imposed on a juvenile are for his or her care, protection, and education.
Juvenile Offenders Should be Tried as Adults Essay - Words | Cram
In New Zealand, since , Family Group Conferences have been used to replace or supplement youth courts for most of the serious criminal cases. In the early s, England and Wales moved toward community-based sanctions for young offenders and away from institutional placements.
- dissertations and theses from start to finish (apa 2006);
- Site Search Navigation;
- Pros And Cons Of Abolishing The Juvenile Court System.
This trend was reversed in the s, however, when England and Wales reacted to the upswing in juvenile violence in a manner similar to the United States, focusing on the offense, rather than the offender. The U. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of made it easier to place offenders younger than 15 years in juvenile correctional facilities and extended the maximum length of allowable sentences. Crime and Disorder Act of moved the English juvenile justice system even further toward a punitive, offense-based model. Neither Sweden nor Denmark uses a separate juvenile court, but youthful immaturity is considered a mitigating factor in deciding their criminal responsibility.