Juvenile Justice Culp/Comp in General the Definition

Juvenile Justice Culp/Comp

In general the definition of culpability refers to the concept of the individuals' ultimate responsibility for his or her actions, while competency refers to the individuals learned ability to behave appropriately, i.e. In a way that is acceptable to his or her society and within the law. Competency in a legal sense is also thought of as the individuals understanding through learning and maturity the difference between choices he or she makes, i.e. right or wrong, criminal or non-criminal. "Competency, & #8230; is the ability to understand basic court procedure, to understand the charge and the ability to assist your attorney in your defense." (Carol, 2009) Juvenile justice has since its inception almost unfailingly affirmed that children before a certain age are neither fully culpable for their actions nor fully competent to either make right or wrong choices or even defend themselves from accusation.

Challenges have been brought to legislators and policy makers recently that further define stages of both culpability and levels of both personal competency and legal competency for juveniles, many of which make attempts to define stages by age, and reiterate the need for evaluations, by mental health professionals that determine these levels and then a system that intervenes to allow the individual child opportunity and teaching regarding legal competency. (Carol, 2009) Though these challenges are not inherently bad, as they seek to further protect children from legal situations that might overlook their rights and protections as a result of their defined inability to speak for and defend themselves, many are also leery as these systems for helping them gain competency are not in place and age level definitions are inherently challenging as no individual develops these skills at the same time. This is also especially true of individual juveniles who live in at risk environments, such as in poverty and/or poor neighborhoods with challenged global ethics.

This is not to say that juvenile justice believes that no child within its system is completely unaware or inculpable for his or her actions, but there is intended to be a separation for juveniles that allows for variations in their competency and culpability as compared to adults. "Frederick Wines declared: "What we should have, in our system of criminal justice, is an entirely separate system of courts for children, in large cities, who commit offenses which could be criminal in adults." (Tanenhaus 3) This separate court system would later be defined and conceived by subsequent legal advocates as it developed, concurrently with other institutions of the new nation, beginning around the time of the U.S. Civil War to answer questions regarding freedom and ethic with regard to children.

Justice O'Connor explained that even if most adolescents are "generally less blameworthy than adults who commit similar crimes -- it does not necessarily follow that all fifteen-year-olds are incapable of the moral culpability that would justify the imposition of capital punishment." (2006, p. 953)