However, the language and form of punishment used to rehabilitate and punish children differs greatly from that used in adult courts (Siegel, 2009). The juvenile court system serves two major functions; keeping juvenile offenders away from the society and rehabilitating or correcting them. Correction helps to hold juveniles accountable to their action by helping them to realize the wrong they have done. In addition, correction facilities help to educating, and imparting social skills among juvenile offenders. 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.
| 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.
(OJJDP 1994). Intensive supervision programs contain a wide range of programs and plans for the juvenile. Although ISP’s are used more commonly in the adult correctional system, ISP’s programs are aimed at the more serious offenders are being welcomed as an option in the juvenile justice systems throughout the country. According to the OJJDP, “The definition of juvenile offender varies among programs. For example, the chronic juvenile offender refers to the individual who began his or her delinquent career at an early age, has numerous minor offenses and for whom regular probation has been ineffective.” They believe that the ISP’s can work for those juveniles who have committed more serious but nonviolent offenses as well.
One of the most significant differences is the intent of the two systems; the focus of the juvenile justice system is on rehabilitation and future reintegration, while the goal of the criminal justice system is punishment and deterrence of future crime. In juvenile court rulings, decisions often take psychosocial factors into account along with current offense severity and the youth’s offense history. In contrast, in criminal proceedings, the severity of the offense and criminal history weigh most heavily in sentencing outcome. Upon release, those who pass through the juvenile justice system receive parole-like surveillance along with reintegration programs, reflecting the belief that juvenile behavior can be changed. Those released from prison receive surveillance which serves to monitor and
These types of decisions to try juveniles in adult court serve society in terms of placing these individuals in custody for potential rehabilitation and introduction back into society. According to Kathleen Michon, one of the advantages of trying a juvenile case in criminal courts is that “minors have the right to a jury trial in adult court” [since] most states do not provide a jury trial for juveniles (Michon, 2014, p. 2). Michon also suggests that juveniles will be more apt to receive a “sympathetic jury” (Michon,
Adjunction helps to define whether child should be judged according to the adult system. Adjudication usually includes presentation of evidences and cross-examination of witnesses (Purpura, 1996). Very often if the evidence is insufficient, the petition may be dismissed. Nevertheless, for a juvenile tried and convicted in adult court, the offender can be sentenced to the Department of Corrections, but can be placed in the Youth Authority through age 24 (LAO, 2007). 2 All in all, adjudication is an important trial stage of the juvenile justice process.
Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults? The article “Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults” by Terry A. Maroney describes the relation of teens and the criminal system. She believes that teens are not adults and that they do not have the mentality or righteousness as an adult. Saying a child or teen is an adult does not make them one. She continues on to say that it is proven that teens are more likely to be influenced by peer pressure.
According to "Juvenile Court Procedure" (2012), "After committing an offense, juveniles are detained rather than arrested. Next, a petition is drawn up which outlines the jurisdiction authority of the juvenile court over the offense and detained individuals, gives notice for the reason for the court appearance, serves as notice to the minor's family, and also is the official charging document"(para 1). Moreover, juvenile offender cases are heard in family courts unlike adult cases that are heard in criminal court. In response, to all the information I provided, my opinion is that the juvenile process should definitely differ from the adult process. I think that juveniles should not receive a harsh of a process as adults because he or she are still kids themselves.
Objectives of Punishment within the U.S. Corrections System CJA492 January 28, 2013 Melissa Andrewjeski The state and federal objectives of punishment are the consequence or penalty for a crime that was committed. The punishment is to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence. The punishment is to prevent the crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences. In other words the punishment needs to be severe enough to make the offender not want to reoffend. The punishment is to protect the community from the offender by keeping them off the street, and trying to reconcile if this person wants to change for the better, in essence to also promote the rehabilitation option to the offender which could help denounce the conduct of the offender, but ultimately for the offender to recognize the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.
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