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.
¶ … juvenile offenders' ability to understand their legal rights and one issue related to their ability to participate effectively in their own defense.
Ability to understand legal rights: Competency
Ability to participate effectively in their own defense: Treating juveniles differently
According to U.S. criminal law, part of the right to counsel includes the notion that a defendant must be able to participate in his or her defense (Sandborn 2009: 137). However, schizophrenics, persons with low IQ, and many other individuals who might seem otherwise unable to discern right from wrong have been found competent to assist in their own defense, even persons later found to be insane. The question of juvenile competency is particularly vexing given that juveniles have an innately 'different' status under the law. The focus of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation, and to a lesser extent, restitution, while the focus of the adult justice system is usually equal amounts retribution, rehabilitation, and restitution, and for some crimes there is a greater emphasis placed upon retribution.
One of the most important questions is if competence should be determined in juvenile or adult terms. The states have contradictory policies on this matter. For example, Arkansas law has found that defendants younger than age thirteen must be found capable of future-oriented thinking, logical decision, and able to evaluate the implications of moral behavior. Michigan and Iowa evaluate...
This is why juveniles are treated differently than adults within the court system. Is a 'competent' juvenile really so competent after all?
Although it is claimed by Sandborn (2009) that little difference exists between juvenile perceptions of the legal system and adults because juveniles are able to understand concepts of 'judge' and 'jury,' this seems to ignore mounting scientific evidence that juvenile risk-taking and appreciation of consequences is biologically less acute than that of adults (Sandborn 2009: 157). However, even if teens are seen as generally less competent than adults, the question remains if competency should be conceptualized as a continuum in the justice system, or if there should be a fundamentally different test of competency for both youth and adults, given that youths already have additional protections within the juvenile justice system thanks to its rehabilitative focus.
This notion of treating juveniles differently, but not more leniently than adults, is also reflected in the creation of youth courts, which try juveniles via a jury of their peers rather a trial by judge or an adult jury (Peterson n.d.). While this sounds innovative and interesting (it assumes that there may be different peer group perceptions of…
Juveniles in the juvenile justice system often lack an understanding of Miranda Rights. This is the first contact most juveniles have with the legal system. Empirical studies investigating juveniles' comprehension of the Miranda warning indicate that they tend not to understand the warnings, which has significant implications for a " knowing and intelligent" waiver of such rights under the totality of circumstances test (Colwell, 2005).
According to Erik Erikson, normal psychosocial development includes the development of trust (birth to 12 months), autonomy (1 to 2 years), initiative (3 to 5 years), industry, identity (12 to 18 years), intimacy, generativity, and ego integrity (60s and above) (Crain, 2011). Development begins in infancy and progresses as the infantile ego interacts with the environment (Crain, 2011). In order for a child to progress from one stage to another requires full mastery of the previous stage. Attributes of autonomy in psychosocial maturity are self-reliance, work orientation, and identity (Greenberger, 1984). Attributes of social responsibility are social commitment, openness to sociopolitical change, and tolerance of individual and cultural differences (Greenberger, 1984).
When evaluating psychosocial maturity, juvenile justice professionals must be able to full understand the juvenile. Examples of questions a professional might ask include: Do you accept responsibility without being reminded or pressured? Are you sympathetic and responsive to what others need? Do you cope with change? Do you show confidence to handle situations that come
Juvenile offenders have grown to become a serious problem in many countries, especially the United States. Like adult offenders, juvenile offenders are more likely to reoffend, especially without the proper guidance and assistance they need in order to live a law abiding life. Research within the last five years has led to identification of specific program models as well theory-based intervention approaches that not only assist juvenile offenders in leading
Relevance Juvenile offenders and reoffenders are an important problem facing the United States criminal justice system. For more than one hundred years, states held the belief that the juvenile justice system acted as a vehicle to safeguard the public via offering a structure that enables the rehabilitation of children growing into adulthood. States identified the difference of children committing crimes versus adult offenders (Loeber & Farrington, 2012). For example, the states
Dugan: Should be on its own page. Juvenile recidivism is a prevalent problem in the criminal justice system. Tackling reoffending remains a complex task requiring several strategies and aims. It involves research, acknowledgement of causes, factors, exploration, and evaluation of subgroups to generate long-term, positive changes in the lives of juvenile offenders. From gang violence to Interactive, Constructive, Active, and Passive (ICAP), researchers discover some of the reasons why juveniles
However, the prosecutor is not the only person who can seek a transfer. Juvenile court judges can also begin transfer proceedings (Michon, 2012). Furthermore, in some states there are automatic transfer laws, which require that juveniles over a certain age be tried as adults when they commit specific crimes, usually violent crimes like rape or murder. In states without automatic transfer laws, the defendant is entitled to a hearing
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
" (Potter, 1999) Supreme Court finally strikes down juvenile executions On Mar. 1, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down once and for all juvenile executions in the United States, abandoning nations such as Nigeria, Congo, China, Pakistan and others whose records of human rights abuse are staggering. The 5-4 decision reverses the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes. The executions, the