Plea bargaining exist for juvenile and adult offenders. A trial in juvenile court is different from trial in an adult court. A plea bargain is an agreement between the prosecution and the defense by which the defendant agrees to plead guilty for certain considerations, such as a lenient sentence. They both have this process in courts. In juvenile court a plea bargain hinges on a juvenile's compliance with certain conditions.
The juvenile system is the collection of government agencies that function to investigate, supervise, adjudicate, care for, or confine youthful offenders and other children subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court (Schmallegar, 2011). Juvenile offenders can be described as delinquents or status offenders which have some key likenesses and differences. There are many elements that relate with juvenile crime rates. There are many differences and similarities between the juvenile court system and the adult court system. One of the differences is that juveniles do not have the right to a trial by a jury.
The officer then may place the juvenile in a detention center or in some cases a foster home (Bartollas & Miller, 2008, p.18). Unlike adults juveniles can be arrested for noncriminal acts that are classified as juvenile offenses. Meaning there are different laws for minors then there are for
For example, in adult court the adult is usually referred to as the defendant whereas in juvenile court, he or she is always referred to as the minor. In juvenile court, a person is not “guilty” but called “delinquent” instead. A sentencing hearing is called a disposition hearing in juvenile court. Juvenile hall would be the equivalent to jail, and reformatory or reform school would be the equivalent to prison. Juvenile cases are sealed and their sentences are usually shorter than adult court potentially getting sentenced to life in
Under such sentencing, the juvenile court imposes a sentence that blends a juvenile disposition and an adult sentence for certain serious youthful offenders. Only some states in the U.S. follow Juvenile Blended Sentencing. In states that allow their juvenile courts to impose blended sentences, detailed descriptions of procedures, standards, burdens of proof, and threshold offense and minimum age requirements are provided.” (USLegal.com, 2013) As with any new type of endeavor or the new installation of a new law, there will be successes and failures because we are human and we make mistakes. Within the following paragraphs I will discuss examples of successes and failures in the juvenile justice system involving blended juvenile sentencing. Up first we have the
ju Natsaha Fussell ju Juvenile Crime Law is a subcategory of Juvenile Law. Although a type of criminal law, juvenile crime law only deals with under-age individuals, who are treated very differently than adults in criminal law, and usually have their own courts of law. Minors under the age of 18 years, who commit a crime, or otherwise violate established rules and statutes, are identified as juvenile delinquents, juvenile offenders, youthful offenders, or delinquent minors. Laws governing juvenile delinquency are largely enacted and regulated on a state by state basis. The doctrine of parens patriae allows the state to essentially act as parent to a youth by legislation, for the purpose of maintenance, custody, care and protection of the children within the state.
They also deal with both way offences which can be tried in both magistrates and or crown court. Indictable offences are referred to crown court after the accused appear before the magistrates to confirm their name and charges. Magistrates’ courts also deal with family and youth courts which may include adoptions, maintenance payments and care proceedings. In youth courts the public are not allowed in apart from only those directly involved in the case. 95%of criminal offences are tried and dealt with in magistrates’ court.
Although politicians claim that the public demands tough policies, moral panics tend to dissipate when the crisis passes. Many around the country would argue because of more serious crimes committed by adults has fashioned an umbrella on the juvenile system which imposes robust crimes for the juvenile themselves. Now when a juvenile has committed a crime, the next step is the procedures of handling the juvenile physically and mental status. Following the arrest of a juvenile offender, a law enforcement officer has the discretion to release the juvenile to his or her parents, or take the offender to juvenile
A significant number of cases heard in juvenile court are status offenses (A Separate System for Juveniles).” Around seventy percent of juveniles that get arrested are referred to juvenile court. The type of discretion that an officer uses is determined by the severity of the crime in question. “The police role with juveniles is expanded because they handle many noncriminal matters referred to as status offenses, including running away, curfew violations, and truancy as well as non-delinquent juvenile matters such as neglect, abuse, and missing persons reports (Police and Juvenile Offenders).” Some urban police departments have special units to the regard specifically to juveniles. Juveniles tend to have less respect for authority; the immaturity of juveniles makes them more prone to the peer pressure of others. Many juveniles see officers on patrol as a challenge of avoiding capture, instead
The reality of a separate justice system within which offenders who have not yet reached the age of majority are judged, sanctioned, and rehabilitated is predicated on the premise that there are significant psychological differences between adolescents and adults, and that these differences are triggered by the normal process of development, age-related, and legally relevant. For the past 100 years in the United States, the acceptance of this premise has guided juvenile justice policy and maintained a jurisdictional boundary between juvenile and criminal court (Steinberg, L. 2000). Historically, the boundary was violated only in some extreme cases of dangerousness or resistance, and only then when the age of the offender approached the upper bound of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Most reasonable people agree that a small number of offenders should be kept out of the juvenile system because they pose a genuine threat to the safety of other juveniles, because the severity of their offense merits a relatively more severe punishment, or because their history of repeated offending promises poorly for their ultimate rehabilitation. Nevertheless, when the wholesale transfer to criminal court of various classes of juvenile offenders that are defined solely by the charged offense starts to become the rule rather than the exception, we need to stop and take stock of what we are doing.