Through the correction function of juvenile court system, young offenders are influenced to realize their potential by helping them to build acceptable vocational and interpersonal skills. Over the years, the juvenile justice system in the United States have been facing a major challenge trying to balance between punishments and transforming the behavior of young offenders (Heiss, 2006). The juvenile justice system has two divergent philosophies the conservative and liberal philosophies. The conservative philosophy is based on the premise of retribution. Retribution helps to remove offenders from the society through incarceration.
The issue of youth justice evolved into the concept conferencing, which can be considered as an option if a young person has committed an offence that is covered by the Young Offenders Act 1997 (cwlth), but is too serious to be dealt with by way of police warning or formal police caution. The point of this is to keep young offenders out of the criminal justice system and rehabilitate them instead of sending them to juvenile detention for periods at a time. (b) Explain the problems in the current criminal justice system with reference to that issue The main problems in the current criminal justice system can be seen as: • the failure to address social and economic dimensions of juvenile crime • inadequate legal frameworks • high level of violence and abuse from police The failure to address the dimensions of juvenile crime arose due to a number of reasons, but common to a few key points. Firstly, in reference to the social issues, the general public and local communities did not feel as though the juvenile offender really understood how the crime they committed impacted on everyone; including the
However, this innocence means that children are seen as vulnerable and in need of protection from dangers of the adult world and so they must be kept quarantined and separated from it. As a result, children’s lives are lived largely in the sphere of the family and education, where adults provide for them from and protect them from the outside world. Similarly, unlike adults, they lead lives of leisure and play and are largely excluded from paid work. There are many cross-cultural differences in childhood. Anthropologist Ruth Benedict argues that children from more simpler and non-industrial societies are generally treated differently from there modern western
First I am going to talk about the supporters. They believe that all youth should be responsible for their actions. Their key arguments are: Stiffer charges will make the youths think twice before they do the crimes; this will lead to lower crime rates in future. Youths who commit crimes are sent to rehabilitation, while sometimes their victims are left to suffer forever. The youth’s age shouldn’t be a bias factor for receiving punishments.
Adults have a hard time making the right judgment calls, imagine the mindset of an emotional immature child? Compared to adults, children are more likely to take haste and depend on their irrational decisions making. This lack of maturity should not be held against the child. Furthermore, we should be protecting and educating our children, not taking out vengeance through irreversible punishments. By punishing a child through the serving of a sentence in an adult prison will only damage the child psyche and cause him to lash out to society.
| Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults | | | Michelle Rogers | 10/5/2014 | | The whole purpose of the juvenile court system is to guide and rehabilitate adolescents/children by providing direction to those convicted of crime. The courts should be focusing on rehabilitation, while the state should act as a parental figure rather than a prosecutor or judge. Taking a parental approach would help channel youth in appropriate directions instead of simply punishing them for their mistakes. States deliberately give harsher sentences to teach adolescents/children a lesson. President Mark Soler of the Washington, D.C., Youth Law Center points out that adolescents/children are required by law to be incarcerated separately from adults.
Juveniles would not become repeated offenders. Some say they lack the maturity to understand the wrongness of comprehending their actions. Juveniles can be rehabilitated. The justice legal system, should they treat juvenile violent offenders as adults? My rebuttal: Yes, a heinous crime remains a heinous crime regardless who has committed it.
People have no clue of how that juvenile may live, or the things he or she may tolerate at home. The focus of the juvenile court system are simple: reduce the amount of concerns dealing with legal issues of guilt and innocence, the importance of the juveniles’ best interests, and privacy and protection. Once a juvenile has been accused of committing a crime, the first thing to find out is their involvement. Are they guilty or innocent? No one wants to convict an innocent man or woman of a crime they didn’t commit, so surely no one wants to convict a juvenile—without knowing.
Juvenile delinquents sometimes suffer from conditions such as mental disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or bipolar disorder. Conduct disorder may also be the cause and/or effect of their actions. Juveniles who are at risk of offending often live in problematic circumstances. Children who have lost their parents or are living alone and lack the basic necessities such as housing and food are more prone to becoming juvenile delinquents. The causes for children being lest alone or orphaned may be cause by society and not necessarily by accident.
It stated that courts should not make an order, unless it was deemed that it would be better for the child than not making an order at all, and that the courts should consider the feelings and wishes of the child and to try to maintain the child’s home and family links. The act also introduced ‘parental responsibility’, it defined the rights, duties, powers and responsibilities that parents have by law in relation to their child. It set out details about what local authorities and courts should do to safeguard children. It states that local authorities have the duty to investigate should they believe that a child who lives in their area is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. Local authorities also have a duty to provide services to help children in need and their families.