Juveniles in the US Criminal Justice System

Juveniles in the US male take aparticularor Justice SystemThe new-fangled coquette system has been in macrocosm since 1899 (Kerbs, n.d.). Although this does non show how long teenage crimes apply been taking place, it does experience one a glimpse into how long teenage crime has been taken to court of laws. Politically, both sides of the spectrum liberals as well as conservatives atomic number 18 calling for the abolishment of the juvenile courts jurisdiction over delinquency adjudications (Kerbs, n.d.). Sadly, crimes that juveniles are committing hold in execute to a greater extent(prenominal) violent including rape and murder and although they are still, in fact children, they must still be punish for their crime. In most cases, a child who is over the age of 13 and commits a crime of that magnitude will be tried in an crowing court. The one affaire that needs to be remembered is that children are children, non self-aggrandizings. A possibility carcass that c hildren send word be rehabilitated into becoming more productive members of society erst they have gone through any(prenominal)(a) sort of rehabilitation process. of course, at that place is always the exception to that rule when children just do not charge and want to continue living a bad life and committing crimes. Adults have already gotten set in their ways and the chances of rehabilitating them are not as great as that of a child.Comparison between juvenile and adult courtsSome differences between the two tokens of courts are the terminology used in each. For juveniles, they commit an act of delinquency whereas adults commit a crime (Misha, 2006). Differences in background are another way that the two courts at a lower placeside be distinguished. When considering the juvenile case, the courts weigh at both the students academic and family background. In adult courts, these issues are not considered when the adult is on trial (Misha, 2006). Juvenile courts look at reha bilitation efforts for the child who committed the delinquency. Adult courts focus more on the fact that the adult committed a crime and the fellowship in which he or she lives or committed that crime does not approve of that crime and think the individual needs to be punished accordingly (Misha, 2006). Juveniles are not arrested save taken into custody. Adults are manifestly arrested. Adults are indicted and juveniles have petitions filed against them. Juvenile courts must every agree to a finding or deny the petition. Adults have to enter a supplication of guilty, not guilty, or no contest. Juvenile courts have an adjustment made. In adult courts, this is also called plea bargaining (Misha, 2006). Juvenile courts will regulate if the child should go to a detention facility or childcare center adults who are facing due process are either sent to jail or sent back to jail (Misha, 2006).Similarities are present between the two as well. Both juveniles and adults have a right to get counsel to represent them in court. Both have a right to cross-examine and also to confront witnesses. They have the right to be protected against self-incrimination and a right to be advised of the charges pending against them. Last, the pursuance in both types of courts must show proof that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before the defendant quite a little be convicted.Implications of Juveniles in Adult mashsThere are times when resolve will remand a juvenile to an adult court, depending on the inclementness of the crime that has been committed, including rape and murder. This is called waiving jurisdiction, and it also depends on some other factors such as the age of the juvenile, and whether or not the court feels that the juvenile wad be rehabilitated (Steinberg, 2000). In some states, a juvenile court estimate must waive jurisdiction for certain offenses if probable cause exists that the juvenile committed the offense (Steinberg, 2000). other st ates have a presumption expiration in which the juvenile will be transferred to unlawful court, when it is presumed appropriate. If the juvenile prat prove that he or she should be in a juvenile rehabilitation program, then they will not get a presumption waiver (Steinberg, 2000). The judge will make that final decision, but the juvenile must be the one to prove it.Direct File, which is also cognize as Prosecutorial Discretion, exists in some jurisdictions and the prosecutor who uses his or her own treat can file charges either in a juvenile or criminal court (Steinberg, 2000). Statutory Exclusion, which is also known as legislative Exclusion, Mandatory Transfer, or Automatic Transfer, there are certain categories under which the juvenile can be excluded automatically from juvenile court. This exclusion is persistent by a combination of age and offense (Steinberg, 2000). In some states there is a reverse waiver where a criminal court judge can waive a case to juvenile court b ased on various characteristics of the offender and the offense (Steinberg, 2000). In some states like New York, juveniles who are age 16 or 17 will automatically be tried in a criminal court because the juvenile court jurisdiction ends at age 15, and this is not considered a transfer. More cases are existence transferred to adult courts because the list of cases being tried are growing, approximately one-third of those cases are for non-violent offenses like looting or drugs, and there are a larger number of dusky and Hispanic offenders transferred than white offenders, even when they have committed the same type of crime (Steinberg, 2000).The problem that exists in this area is that there are many an(prenominal) cases being tried in adult courts for children who are too younker to really and fully understand the consequences behind their actions. The punishments they are being presumption are the same as adults and this does not sound like a fair deal. Punishments that are h anded down to these juveniles in the adult courts should be through so with the understanding of the juvenile that they know what they have done is wrong and they can accept the consequences of their actions (Steinberg, 2000). The age of the offender needs to be taken into account and the judicial system certainly needs to pull in that some juveniles, even at the age of 17, may not be emotionally mature enough to have this understanding.Societal Implications of Abolishing Juvenile CourtIf juvenile courts are taken away, there will be more juveniles sent to adult prisons and given much harsher sentences and punishments than they should really get. It is crucial for the U.S. to forbid these courts alive and active. Sending juveniles to adult prisons can make their lives much worse, and the chances of them being rehabilitated and becoming better citizens will be reduced greatly because of the things that can happen to them in prison and the things they will learn in prison. Children should not be housed with adults who are career criminals and have spent the better part of their lives doing bad things, hurting people and stealing. No one wants their children to end up like that. It is likely that society will not allow this to happen, but if citizens and law makers alike do not fight it, abolishing juvenile courts can become a reality.