Teenagers do not have the intellectual or mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions; they lack the same capacity to be trial defendants. The reason behind juvenile court systems is to protect these immature kids instead of harming them. Parents and institutions need to work with young criminals to shape their brains onto the right path to
Many believe that a government without limits will turn into a government that acts in ways that will disregard the rights of all in all circumstances (Zalman, M. (2008). Those who support the crime control model, however, indicate that these protections hinder law enforcement investigation and allow defendants more privacy than victims are allowed “Crime control emphasizes an efficient criminal process through early determination of guilt by law enforcement agents” and the Fourth Amendment prevents this (Cornell,
Classification also presents difficulties. Less focused surveys shift responsibility for the definition of the events to the respondent, and without the equivalent of police procedures the resulting reports are far from uniform. In addition victims determine whether the incident was a crime, not the law. The survey only provides information about the experience of victims, not information about the crime. There is no way to validate whether an individual’s account is true or false.
There is a misunderstanding of the funnel process. People tend to believe it let lets the criminal off without punishment. This is so not the case. Most cases are thrown out or a plea bargain is reached because of the lack of evidence (Copyright 2003). The third model is the net model; this model helps with understanding why some crimes do not make it to court.
There is a reason behind everything There is a reason why the word “young” differs from the word “old” because young people have fewer experiences than old people, or also known as adults. In his essay, “No Mercy”, Malcolm Gladwell thinks that zero tolerance should not apply to young people as they are still immature and not yet adults. I agree with his idea of using discretionary justice when deciding punishments of young people because there is a reason why young people make immature decisions. Their future will turn out to be completely different if the punishments weren’t taken care of accordingly. Discretionary justice can be defined as a measure of leniency considering the background and the records of the victim before deciding their punishments.
Juvenile courts do not have proper laws to fairly prosecute violent crimes to the fullest extent. Unpunished offenders will move on to bigger and worse crimes as they get older. If they learn that it is unacceptable early in life, they have a brighter future than those who take juvenile court as a joke, knowing the limits to their punishment. In a juvenile processing, the most they will get is put on house arrest, in a detention center, or maybe a combination of the two. It is already dreadful enough that, according to Jessica Wilde, “The privacy of minors is
This case led to the questioning of whether the legal system is effective for the individual and the community and whether it really brought justice to the victims of crime. A large proportion of society feel let down by the legal system, as a mechanism put into place to protect and bring justice has obviously failed in this case. The fact that serious sex offenders who place a black mark on the well being of victims, both physically and mentally being let off in less than 20 years caused a lot of conroversy. Although it may be argued that 55 years was a harsh penalty and didn’t warrant the crime, the victim’s of the crime received a much harsher sentence, a life of trauma and a constant feeling of alarm. Denele Crozier a Women's Health NSW executive officer asked the question many women had asked after the appeal was established ``How many times do women have to be constantly let down and disappointed by the legal
Should Felons Have the Right to Vote? The right to vote is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. However, the universal suffrage of the adult population has not been conducted in many of today's democracies. Internationally, millions of prisoners and offenders in some countries have been denied the right to vote. The exclusion of this civic process is a threat to democracy.
As this has occurred, non-legal responses such as rehabilitation and advocacy services have attempted to achieve justice while legal responses lag behind. Overall there is a lack of justice, with high incarceration and recidivism, leaving young people stuck in the system, and the accumulative responses ineffective. Protecting young offenders is essential in achieving justice, and this is reached through doli incapax and the prohibition of releasing children’s names when involved in criminal proceedings. Doli incapax is the presumption that children under 14 are incapable of forming criminal intent (mens rea) under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW). This legislation coincides with international law obligations from the United Nations’ Convention of the Rights of a Child.
A major issue facing the juvenile justice system is how young offenders are treated and held, before the trial process. Laws dictating rights of adult suspects are not necessarily applied to juveniles, and this is due to an unresolved and halfway approach to juvenile crime.Juveniles are not considered responsible adult, it is often the case that parents are to be turned to when arrests take place. Legally, a parent or guardian must be contacted upon the holding of a suspected juvenile. This is a mode of thinking perhaps admirable, but hopelessly antiquated and unrealistic, since many adolescent offenders do not come from traditional backgrounds, or even have a parent in place as guardian. What actually happens in most cases of juvenile arrest