Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
This Act was more focused on preventing juvenile delinquency and separating the juveniles from the adults in the correction facilities. It was argued that the juveniles learnt even worse crimes and became more radical criminals if detained together with the adult offenders. This was more pronounced during the 'Progressive Era' with proponents like Morrison Swift suggesting that the juvenile delinquents only benefited to learn more criminal tactics from the seasoned adult criminals and hence replicate them in the society at the end of their period. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 introduced the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the Runaway Youth Program, and the National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NIJJDP).
Due to the never ending diversity of nature of crime, in the 1980s through to mid 1990s there was a rise in juvenile crimes with the peak being 1994 after which it took a nose dive. This necessitated the legislation of 'get tough on crime' measures. This was an amendment of the 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and it now allowed states to try juveniles as adults in cases of violent crimes and crimes involving use of weapons. In some states, there were even stipulated detention periods and standards. The prediction fronted by Potter Stewart that there would be treatment of juveniles as adult criminals came to pass then. This system no longer treated juvenile delinquents under the violent crimes as delinquents but as young criminals as rehabilitation took a back bench. It was in the same period that there was witnessed growth in juveniles who took violence as a way of life, school shootings, use of crude weapons in playing fields among other...
There has been a gradual increase in 'waiver' of cases from the juvenile courts to the state criminal courts in the recent years. Through the judicial waiver, statutory exclusion or prosecutorial discretion, the juveniles are considered 'legal adults' there are several reasons contributing to the waiver of such cases in the U.S. In the U.S. there are 36 states that have enacted legislation excluding some particular offenses from jurisdiction of juvenile courts.
Among the reasons for waiver of cases in the U.S. is the age of the offender and the seriousness of the offence or crime committed. However, there are some states where the minimum age does not apply. Majority of the cases waived to criminal courts include murder; injury directly inflicted on the victim or assault; malicious destruction of property; crimes involving disruption of public order, obstruction of justice and crime involving use of weapons; and drug offences. There are as well other minor offenses like fish and game violation that warrant waiver since they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts. Some courts will also offer waiver to cases of felony to repeat offender. A waiver can also be issued in some states under circumstances that the jury postulates that the offender is not susceptible to treatment. Waiving juveniles to criminal court can also be due to consideration that the involved juvenile deserves more punitive criminal court authority. It also operates on the premises that the "get tough" approach to fighting delinquency will help deter intending criminal characters. However, research has it that these more
Due to the never ending diversity of nature of crime, in the 1980s through to mid 1990s there was a rise in juvenile crimes with the peak being 1994 after which it took a nose dive. This necessitated the legislation of 'get tough on crime' measures. This was an amendment of the 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and it now allowed states to try juveniles as adults in cases of violent crimes and crimes involving use of weapons. In some states, there were even stipulated detention periods and standards. The prediction fronted by Potter Stewart that there would be treatment of juveniles as adult criminals came to pass then. This system no longer treated juvenile delinquents under the violent crimes as delinquents but as young criminals as rehabilitation took a back bench. It was in the same period that there was witnessed growth in juveniles who took violence as a way of life, school shootings, use of crude weapons in playing fields among other crimes (Lawyershop 2008).
This trend of transferring juvenile cases into fully fledged criminal cases has persisted to date. There has been a gradual increase in 'waiver' of cases from the juvenile courts to the state criminal courts in the recent years. Through the judicial waiver, statutory exclusion or prosecutorial discretion, the juveniles are considered 'legal adults' there are several reasons contributing to the waiver of such cases in the U.S. In the U.S. there are 36 states that have enacted legislation excluding some particular offenses from jurisdiction of juvenile courts.
Among the reasons for waiver of cases in the U.S. is the age of the offender and the seriousness of the offence or crime committed. However, there are some states where the minimum age does not apply. Majority of the cases waived to criminal courts include murder; injury directly inflicted on the victim or assault; malicious destruction of property; crimes involving disruption of public order, obstruction of justice and crime involving use of weapons; and drug offences. There are as well other minor offenses like fish and game violation that warrant waiver since they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts. Some courts will also offer waiver to cases of felony to repeat offender. A waiver can also be issued in some states under circumstances that the jury postulates that the offender is not susceptible to treatment. Waiving juveniles to criminal court can also be due to consideration that the involved juvenile deserves more punitive criminal court authority. It also operates on the premises that the "get tough" approach to fighting delinquency will help deter intending criminal characters. However, research has it that these more
Ideally, diversion should take place at the earliest stages of juvenile justice processing, to refer a youth to essential services and avert further involvement in the system. On the other hand, diversion mechanisms can be put into place at later stages of justice processing, to avoid further penetration into the system and expensive out-of-home placements. Efforts to keep youth out of the juvenile justice system who otherwise would be processed
Juvenile Justice System currently faces a number of challenges in dealing with delinquency. Many of those problems are underlying problems such as mental health issues, child abuse, child neglect, lack of funding, and the disconnection between professions dealing with children, all of which contribute to delinquency. The high incidence of child abuse and child neglect, in particularly, have been directly linked to delinquency and must be sufficiently addressed. In the
Juvenile Justice The Juvenile Criminal Justice System Juvenile courts and detention separate from adult courts is a relatively new concept (ABA, 2010). Before the turn of the twentieth century, the cases for individuals of all ages were managed by the same criminal and civil courts, and the same sentences were handed out to all parties. Of course, this has changed to a great extent since 1899 in the United States, but there
The rest were charged only with minor offenses. The harshness of punishment in such cases appears to be disproportional to the crime. Indeed, Macallair states that the system was originally implemented to target the "worst of the worst." This does not appear to be the case in reality. A further problem specific to Florida entails the disproportionate representation of race in cases transferred to the adult court system. According to
Essentially, the authors focus on keeping the separate juvenile court active within the context of American states. Therefore, Scott & Steinberg (2008) are not proposing the abolition of the juvenile court entirely, like what Feld (1998) is proposing. Scott & Steinberg (2008) believe rather that the adult system would be unable to provide any additional benefits beyond what is provided through the juvenile courts. Keeping up with a separate system
Criminals in the adult criminal justice system are often likely to be career criminals. Moreover, simply to survive in an adult institution, juveniles may have to adopt increasingly anti-social behavior. If the goal is to keep these children from reoffending, putting them in the same system as more experienced criminals, which does not have a deterrence effect on the adults in that system, simply seems like the wrong approach. The